Leveson Enquiry 23/11/11 - McCanns to give evidence

Xavier wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

Xavier wrote:JD wrote:
"And when the PJ had the couple and little blond girl sighting in a petrol station in PDL a few days after Maddie went missing, kate got really irritated on having to go to the police station to look at the CCTV images to identify if she thought it was Maddie"
That is interesting JD - Do you have a reference or link for that?

Is this the bit you are looking for ?
p.92 "It was seven-thirty by the time one of the PJ officers drove us away from the police station. Angela Morado came with us. Ten or fifteen minutes into our journey, the police officer had a call from his station. He said something to Angela, who explained that he’d been ordered to return us to the police station straight away. He wasn’t allowed to tell us why. Already driving at quite a scary speed, he suddenly swung the car into a U-turn, floored the accelerator and drove us at a life-threatening 120mph plus back towards Portimão. I cannot overstate how terrifying this was. Had Madeleine been found? Please God. Was she alive? Was she dead? Gerry and I clung on to each other for dear life. I was crying hysterically and praying for all I was worth.
Back at the police station we endured at least another ten minutes of torture in the waiting area before somebody showed us a photograph, clearly taken from CCTV, of a blonde child with a woman in a petrol-station shop. We weren’t told anything about this, just asked whether the little girl was Madeleine. She wasn’t. And that was that. Again we were sent on our way, utterly devastated."

Thank you PeterMac. Interesting. I am not sure how it has been interpeted by JD that Kate was "really irritated" though.

Well, xavier, I hate to say this again, but you are either deliberately being obtuse or deliberately dissing Petermac for a reason known only to you.

Let's put this way : When the police received info. of that kind of sighting, timing is very critical, so driving at break neck speed to get kate back to the Police station to view the CCTV to confirm or not whether it was Maddie is understandable.
To be clearer, Let's put it another way: Had it really been Maddie and had the Police doddled and took their own sweet time wasting the opportunity surely they would get hell from mccanns (had Madeleine been really missing, that is)!

Not only kate was not grateful for the police sense of urgency she actually sounded relief the 'blond girl' wasn't Maddie. Any normal person would have expressed their disappointment or devastation at that, but not kate! Kate was furious as hell they even bothered to take her back to do the verification.

In that sort of circumstances, and as Amaral stated explicitly in his book the mccanns couple were informed about the sighting and reason for u-turning back to the police station, (quoting Amaral "The parents are informed and Kate is asked to return to Portimão to see if it is Madeleine or not. Instead of being full of hope, Kate looks bored for being forced to return to Portimão and seems angry at the speed of the police car which startled police officers"), kate reaction was beyond unreasonable.

Kate stated explicitly in her bewk she was tired and bored with the whole thing ( meaning having to put up with police questionings about her missing child) Now, she didnt expressely say that but she clearly implied it by these words ("it was seven-thirty by the time" - now which normal mother of a missing child has any sense of time, let alone complained of exhaustion at 7.30pm (still quite decent hour imo, not as if it was past midnight) that's one thing.

Another thing is, she was furious about the entire thing really - car speed, as well as having to wait 10 mins (while PJ load up CCTV and get it working presumably). By her own confession, she gave the impression of someone with a quick and violent temper.
She reacted as if the Police shouldn't have speeded her back to the police station for the identification purpose, even after she'd been shown the image, and knew the reason for the urgency hence speed.

She lied (again) about not being told the reason for the return. Between Amaral and her, I know who I believe - I've no doubt about that!
Alright, for argument sake, even if I were to give her the benefit of doubt, let's put this way, she'd already guessed the reason for the return, as in she said " I cannot overstate how terrifying this was. Had Madeleine been found? Please God. Was she alive? Was she dead? Gerry and I clung on to each other for dear life. [u]I was crying hysterically and praying for all I was worth.

However, my view is she lied about being informed - she gave herself away in those two sentences!
To say her hysterical behavior - crying (and probably cursing and mouthing swear words at the PJ), must have shocked the PJ is an understatement.
Which normal sane and innocent person would react so angrily and hysterically in a situation concerning their missing child?

She has scored her own goal by literally confirming what Amaral stated in his book about that chapter of investigation.
Kate, in her own words, admitted she was furious as hell and described it as a "torture".

I put it to you, no innocent person, would react that way even had they not been pleased about the PJ in certain aspects. Most people are not totally pleased about every aspect of the police works, but regardless of that, innocence would work closely with police to aid police to find their child. Police are humans after all but most importantly if truthful info and statements are given helping them to eliminate certain things out of the equation they can go about investigating the right direction thoroughly.

Kate behaved as if the PJ were her worst enemies. Not only she didn't volunteer to co-operate, she actually resented them doing their work properly and efficiently as evidenced by that episode. she's just full of complaints about the Police at every turn on every aspect without seemingly any valid reason behind it other than the fact they didn't want the Police to question or inconvenience them at all.

No normal person would object to Police's sense of urgency where timing could make a whole world of difference, nor describe having to wait 10 minutes as "torture", especially in retrospect.

Invinoveritas wrote:

Anna wrote:

Xavier wrote:Thanks for that Invinoveritas. So Amaral DID meet the McCanns during the investigation. Interesting, as it has been reported that as co-ordinator he did not meet the McCanns at all.

I didn't know Amaral hadn't met the McCanns during the investigation but nowhere in that quote does it say it was Amaral in the car with Kate. He may have just been reporting what his officers had told him.

of course he wasn't 24 hours a day in action, he was quoting from the records, there is nothing wrong with that, he was coordinating

Can anyone imagine Amaral the chief inspector in the car with the mccanns and they behaved hysterically and disrespectfully to the Police in the manner kate had described in her book? Isn't that blatant contempt for the police?

Police keeping silence and saying very little except the absolute necessary to 'person of interest' or 'suspect' or 'witness' whatever you want to call it is very normal, and in fact expected of them.
It's usually Police who are impatient with obnoxious and cocky witnesses. Here, the scene as kate described it is as if she'd expected to be treated as HRH and given a running commentary by Police.

Kate is so contemptuous about the PJ in her bewk, yet the mccanns haven't the balls to sue the PJ despite dissing them -- says it all really. Too frighten to open a can of worms but wont stop ranting against them - they even did openly at the LI.

The McCanns said at the LI that "arguido" meant "person of interest", but in her bewk she says "We soon found out that Murat had been made an arguido. This formal status meant that he would be officially treated as a suspect in the crime". How they change their tune to suit.

candyfloss wrote:This sentence from the Leveson inquiry by GM is rather puzzling. I have read and re-read it and it is rather odd......................


6 A. Yeah, I mean I think there were two elements. The

7 reporting quickly became highly speculative, and often

8 stories -- for example, there must have been "McCann

9 fury" on the front page of many newspapers over that

10 summer that would quote an unnamed source or friends,

11 and unless our phones were hacked, which I don't think

12 they were, then these were made up because they were

13 simply not true.

My goodness, so glad you posted this Candyfloss!! Talk about GM giving himself away big style!!

The word 'unless' is the giveaway.

He has slipped up big time here IMO.

That's the reason lawyers tell their clients to stfu, but gerry and kate knew better of course.
They'd just perjured themselves by lying under oaths in front of an official inquiry captured on cctv.
In due time this is come back to haunt them.

He accused the PJ of leaking to the PT Press yet he said the stories appearing in the UK Press lifted off PT counterparts were unverified because UK journalists have no mean of checking due to secrecy in place. He's so full of contradiction, if he believed the leaks were from source did he think the PJ plucked those out of thin air? Also that being the case, PT press ensuite UK Press had no need to verify anything if the leaks came from source - isn't that confirmation enough? If the stories came from an unknown source, yes, it could be well fabricated, but if they came from source leaking process ..how then can they be termed untrue.
Gerry cant have it both ways - he cant accused the source yet at the same time claimed the process evidence were untrue. Is he accusing the PJ of lying? It beggars belief no one at LI posed him any serious questions. Leveson was sucking up to those two lying arses. Either that ,or he's not well read up on CPs cases before allowing them to come on and accuse the press of everything under the sky that is not going for them.

Imo they should segregate the inquiry into two types : hacking and others. We cant have all and sundry coming on and rant when this only digress from the Hack Inquiry.

Marian wrote:

dragonfly wrote:In Video (thanks hideho) regarding Kates Diary Gerry said that Kate didn't keep a diary/journal until a couple of weeks after Maddie went missing, Yet I seem to recall Kate writing
'read stories with M S & A and gave them treats of milk and biscuits' - words to that effect not exact, but included M in them (as Kate wrote) I recall her writing non de script things such as 'brushed teeth ' blow dried hair' odd randoms that you just would not write about because it is normal to brush your teeth everyday, If Gerry is correct in saying the Diary was 'started a couple of weeks after' It is making me think the the talk of her writing 'm' in her diary was added in after , unless Im confusing it with the statements? I just can't seem to keep up with it all.

I certainly agree that it's hard to keep up with everything. I thought that the diary was started as soon as Madeleine "disappeared" to show her (when she was found) how hard her parents had worked to find her. Stop sniggering at the back there! Another suggestion methinks that they knew she hadn't just wandered off and wouldn't be found within a day or two.

It looks though as if Kate was keeping a diary prior to 3rd May judging by all the mind-bogglingly dull details in the book as to what they did - and of course there's nothing unusual about that.

Marian Gerry says as clear as day at 3.27 couple of weeks after


yet quote from NOTW
'Now, for the first time, the News of the World can fill in the blanks and nail those lies. The 135-page journal covering April 28, 2007 to Tuesday, July 31, was passed to us by a reporter in Portugal appalled by the sickening smear campaign against the McCanns.'

THURSDAY, MAY 3: Milk and biscuits for the kids. I left them with this and books and games and went to have a quick shower/wash my hair. M (Madeleine) tired—sitting on my lap—I read the story of Mog (favourite children's book).

Brush teeth. To the bedroom with the kids. M pulls away and puts her head on pillow. Kisses goodnight for M. Pulled the door to as far as possible without shutting it. Silence.

Dry hair. Put make-up on. Glass of wine. Restaurant.

a lot of emphasise on Madeleine but not on twins, Never understood the short hand for your kids name only using initial , but would write mundane things like brush teeth and wash hair, had a wash ect, even to write my kid sat on my lap? and 'favourite book' why would you need to write down 'favourite children's book' as a mum you would already know that , no need to remind your self of that, it for me feels like it was meant to read for other peoples eyes just my opinion

There may be an explanation.

"It was after one of the IFLG meetings that Hugh asked me whether I was keeping a diary. Quite apart from the fact that I was an emotional wreck and hadn’t had time to blink for the past week, the idea had never crossed my mind. I hadn’t kept a diary since my early teens, and the accounts of my life then were mind-numbingly boring: what time I got up, what I ate for each meal and which lesson I’d enjoyed most that day.
‘You should,’ he said. He didn’t elaborate on why. The barrister handed me a spare A4 notebook he happened to have with him.
When I thought about it, I realized it would be a good way of remembering these dark and confusing days; of filling in the gaps for Madeleine on her return. It would also be a record of our story that might help all three children to understand what had happened when they were older. Setting aside some blank pages in the notebook I’d been given for the days that had already passed, I wrote a few paragraphs on a couple of occasions the following week, though I didn’t begin in earnest until 23 May, twenty days after Madeleine was taken. From then on, I kept my journal consistently, and when I had a spare moment I went back and filled in the blank pages with notes of our activities and my recollections of every day since 3 May 2007."

Which means that there is ample time for retro-fitting, consulting with Gerry and the others, and ensuring that the story is coherent (!)

This pair are jokers, surely? Whether or not the Leveson enquiry do anything with what has been admitted, and I think we're all pretty much agreed they won't, what has been said on oath will be a matter of public record. Surely won't be as easy to wriggle out of things said here as a vapid pre-arranged interview or blog entry.
I'll use the following example to explain how I see what Gerry has admitted to...

I, Me, Myself, never walk naked round my house - therefore I could NOT EVER be seen doing so in front of my window! So... I would not say -
"Unless someone saw me naked in front of my window, it must be made up". I would say
"It has to be made up"
There is a big, big difference. Here is me thinking you have to be intelligent to be a cardiologist, or even a doctor
Think I'll tell my 12 year old ADD/LD son to aim higher than s**t shoveller after all - second thoughts, G McC seems to have just shovelled a load of s**t into the proverbial fan!
Never, in all my time, have I witnessed suspects (coz that's what you were, K+G - not PC 'persons of interest') to blatantly lie and change their story 1,2,3 times or more... its unbelievable. If there is ever the tipping point that makes me move abroad for good it'll be the treatment of these two. It makes me ashamed to be British. Really.

ETA: I'm not off my face, I really don't know where that 'SUN 27 NOV 2011' came from - truly bizarre!

The book extract said she made up the diary in the sense of filling in the gaps back to May 3rd - but the NOTW say the diary started on 28 April which was the first day of the holiday. For once I believe the NOTW ! Logical that you would go back to that date and in particular mention things that might have appeared innocent then but which could be relevant in the light of what 'happened.'

I agree the content of the diary is banal.A sister in law of always kept holiday diaries but never mentioned cleaning teeth. She'd mention which places they visited, what was the food like in any restaurant they visited, did the children fight/swim/do anything of interest, what the weather was like etc.

It looks like a commissioned diary to deal with spinning their story if needed.

Did the NOTW have to pay them anything for the unauthorised use of the diary?

Yes they did Pauline plus apology......


Kate's Diary

On 14 September 2008, the News of the World published extracts from 'Kate's Diary'. The newspaper claimed that the 135-page 'journal', written on an A4 pad, had been passed to them by a Portuguese reporter.

When it became apparent that Kate had not given authorisation for its release, the online article was instantly removed. Both The Sun and the News of the World published apologies and made an undisclosed payment to Madeleine's Fund.

Portugal's best-selling daily newspaper 'Correio da Manhã' had already serialised extracts from the diary during July 2008 without comment from the McCanns.


http://www.mccannfiles.com/id166.html


More here............

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3660-kate-mccann-s-diary?highlight=kates+diary

The Sun and the News of the World published apologies and made an undisclosed payment to Madeleine's Fund.


http://www.mccannfiles.com/id166.html


So, they made a payment to the fund, which I think is mentioned in the Leveson inquiry too, and yet we are not told how much this was. A payment was also made from the Standard which was also never revealed as to how much it was? Are these in the accounts?

candyfloss wrote:Yes they did Pauline plus apology......


Kate's Diary

On 14 September 2008, the News of the World published extracts from 'Kate's Diary'. The newspaper claimed that the 135-page 'journal', written on an A4 pad, had been passed to them by a Portuguese reporter.

When it became apparent that Kate had not given authorisation for its release, the online article was instantly removed. Both The Sun and the News of the World published apologies and made an undisclosed payment to Madeleine's Fund.

Portugal's best-selling daily newspaper 'Correio da Manhã' had already serialised extracts from the diary during July 2008 without comment from the McCanns.


http://www.mccannfiles.com/id166.html


More here............

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3660-kate-mccann-s-diary?highlight=kates+diary

Thats for clarifying that. So the large payout did not make up for the 'mental rape.' I am coming to the conclusion that this diary was leaked so the Mccanns could sue - would you get more money from sueing than agreeing a publication fee in the first instance? I know that's not a question anyone can answer for sure.

pauline wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Yes they did Pauline plus apology......


Kate's Diary

On 14 September 2008, the News of the World published extracts from 'Kate's Diary'. The newspaper claimed that the 135-page 'journal', written on an A4 pad, had been passed to them by a Portuguese reporter.

When it became apparent that Kate had not given authorisation for its release, the online article was instantly removed. Both The Sun and the News of the World published apologies and made an undisclosed payment to Madeleine's Fund.

Portugal's best-selling daily newspaper 'Correio da Manhã' had already serialised extracts from the diary during July 2008 without comment from the McCanns.


http://www.mccannfiles.com/id166.html


More here............

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3660-kate-mccann-s-diary?highlight=kates+diary

Thats for clarifying that. So the large payout did not make up for the 'mental rape.' I am coming to the conclusion that this diary was leaked so the Mccanns could sue - would you get more money from sueing than agreeing a publication fee in the first instance? I know that's not a question anyone can answer for sure.

if the publication of the diary pushes up the circulation of the papers and the Mccanns take a cut of the profits, then everybody's happy

[quote="rainbow ]Whether or not the Leveson enquiry do anything with what has been admitted, and I think we're all pretty much agreed they won't, ........[/quote]

Effectively gerry is asking the Hack Inquest to gag the press from freedom to photo people at random and gag them from reporting on stories unless they got people written permission/sanction. That is not going to happen in a million year! One rule applies to all. It cant be one rule for gerry and kate and another for others. Although it may seem that way now going by the manner the lying pair use public fund to pay advisers and lawyers to control what comes out of the media.

Despite gerry incessant moaning, Leveson only asked for the leak diary to be investigated further. I take it they are not going to do anything about gerry's demand to gag the press because that's a tall order that will involve change in the years old constitution. A gag in that radical fashion hampers the press from its fundamental function and purpose and I cant see how Leveson is going to table that..

pauline wrote:The book extract said she made up the diary in the sense of filling in the gaps back to May 3rd - but the NOTW say the diary started on 28 April which was the first day of the holiday. For once I believe the NOTW ! Logical that you would go back to that date and in particular mention things that might have appeared innocent then but which could be relevant in the light of what 'happened.'

I agree the content of the diary is banal.A sister in law of always kept holiday diaries but never mentioned cleaning teeth. She'd mention which places they visited, what was the food like in any restaurant they visited, did the children fight/swim/do anything of interest, what the weather was like etc.

It looks like a commissioned diary to deal with spinning their story if needed.

Did the NOTW have to pay them anything for the unauthorised use of the diary?

Yes, $125K in penalty (figure provided by CM), and an apology of course!

Yet gerry rehashed this NOW.

Leveson inquiry – a paparazzo speaks

Paparazzi may not rank highly in public opinion, but it is public appetite for celeb pics that creates the market snappers serve


Kevin Rush
guardian.co.uk, Friday 25 November 2011 19.23 GMT


It's OK everyone taking the stand at the Leveson inquiry and demanding paparazzi be regulated but none of them offered workable solutions.

As a paparazzo I'm well aware I'm down there with traffic wardens in the court of public opinion. I've had eggs and flour thrown at me and more abuse than I care to mention. It doesn't faze me; and if it did I'd have to get another career. In the same way, if I got too bogged down with ethical conundrums every time it came to picturing people such as the Dowlers I'd have to quit.

It's our job to take pictures of the top stories of the day, whoever they may be. It's the moral decision of the newspaper editors whether they print them or not. While there is a market and a public appetite there'll be paparazzi, whatever Leveson eventually decides.

If he completely banned such photos in Britain the photographers wouldn't go away, they'd just sell abroad or to websites. I wish we could go back to the days before digital cameras when it was just film. Back then you needed to be a proper photographer, now anyone can go out and buy an £800 camera and stand outside Nobu and take pictures of the rich and famous.

Some youngsters starting out don't know how to operate properly, driving like lunatics and turning what should be a simple photo into a free-for-all. It's the worst at night; things can get quite aggressive as everyone is fighting to get the best shots, the ones that will sell. You hear all these celebrities complaining about being chased, but the fact is if they don't try and get away then photographers don't need to chase them. Simple.

I've worked all over the world as a paparazzo and Britain is different because celebrities tend to hire these big entourages and that means photographers have to fight harder for the shots. In Hollywood Reese Witherspoon, for example, will go out shopping with a friend accepting she might get her picture taken and there's no issue. Security teams just escalate the situation.

Kate Moss is someone who has a good relationship with photographers: she knows she's a supermodel and that she'll get papped going about her daily life. If a picture appears of her stumbling drunk out of a club so be it, she shrugs it off.

To some extent photographers in London have made a rod for their own back because even the most minor D-lister gets mobbed. Celebrities complain about long-lens photographs but they're the least intrusive of all. A good photographer would ideally take a shot without leaving their car and the target wouldn't even know they'd been there.

The recession hasn't helped matters. In the last two years the value of photos has dropped at least 30%. Some pics will make as little as £10 online and it's rare to see even big exclusives fetch more than £10,000. A full-time paparazzo in London is struggling to take home £2,000 a month. It makes them desperate and so push the boundaries. The News of the World shutting down hasn't helped – they were the best payers.

I have an NUJ press card but most paparazzi don't. Gerry McCann's idea that photographers would need signed permission before being pictured in public is effectively gagging the media. What about if I'm taking a photograph of a policeman taking a bribe? It's not like I can walk on over after and ask him to sign on the dotted line. Plus, technology means everyone is a photographer of sorts. Would regulation apply to a thousand screaming fans with cameraphones outside the Odeon Leicester Square? What about if some chased after Johnny Depp's car afterwards?

If you're in the public eye you have to accept that the public will want to know about your life. The more you try to hide it, the greater the hunger will be.

• For legal reasons, this article will not be open to comments


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/25/leveson-inquiry-paparazzo-speaks?CMP=twt_gu

I love that. On the site called www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree
they include the words.
• For legal reasons, this article will not be open to comments
An interesting article, for he mentions the very reason that we must have a free and fearless press - to root out corruption by high officials. The MPs' expenses scandal was not brought to light by the Police, but by a newspaper.
Whatever we think about the paparazzi, and who doesn't, there must remain a loophole through which they can use their ghastly long lenses to watch people in the public eye behaving inappropriately, to prove wrongdoing, to catch people out in their hypocrisy.
(Quite why hundreds of them have to take the same hundred photos of a D lister going shopping in a track suit is another matter altogether.)
Why then, in this one case, have the press not done so ?
Why do they refuse to ask the important questions when they have the chance ? People talk to the press in a way in which they do not to the police.
Why have they not taken photos of the various protagonists going into secret meetings ?
Why have they, in this one case, failed utterly to do anything remotely useful in the search for the truth about what really happened.

Well said. The Royal family, politicians and A Listers get scrutinised and analysed, why not two average unheard-of people whose daughter vanished off the face of the earth. Why are the journos not asking where the proof of abduction is? A basic question. And one which brings us back to the starting point of four years ago.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:Well said. The Royal family, politicians and A Listers get scrutinised and analysed, why not two average unheard-of people whose daughter vanished off the face of the earth. Why are the journos not asking where the proof of abduction is? A basic question. And one which brings us back to the starting point of four years ago.

Could this be the reason......................


Kate managed the news and controlled the English - Correio da Manhã

Maddie case – Press was manipulated in exchange for photoshoots

27 July 2008
Thanks to 'astro' for translation

Journalists far away from the house

The McCanns' first days in England were subject to intense media attention. They allowed themselves to be photographed with their children again, after they had agreed exclusives with televisions and newspapers to cover the return.

Days later, Clarence Mitchell opted for another strategy. He agreed with the English journalists that those would never persecute the McCanns again. In exchange, the couple's spokesman would supply fortuitous meetings, and in case the journalists would fail their compromise, he would exclude them from his contact list.Everyone accepted. When in March CM [Correio da Manhã] tried to speak to the McCanns without going through Clarence Mitchell, we were intercepted by the police. The couple demanded that Portuguese journalists be forbidden from getting close to their house, and their neighbours were advised not to speak.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id166.html

Xavier wrote:Aiyoyo wrote:

Well, xavier, I hate to say this again, but you are either deliberately being obtuse or deliberately dissing Petermac for a reason known only to you.

I have never met Petermac, but I would guess he is big and ugly enough to look after himself, and does not need you to go into attach poodle mode on his behalf. And what is this teen streetslang you are using? “Dissing”.

With no disrespect, me neither,, but to ask whether he's truly an ex police I felt that was rude.
So you don't think its par for the course that people give you back your own doze of medicine?

Mind you, how the comment: “Thank you PeterMac. Interesting. I am not sure how it has been interpreted by JD that Kate was "really irritated" though” can fairly decribed as such is beyond me.

Nothing wrong with that comment as far as I am concerned. Question is meant for JD isnt it?.

You seem to be one of those posters who objects to any interested newcomers to the forum. Especially anyone with an enquiring mind, an ability to read and a propensity to ask questions. Is it just your manner? Because if this “stranger danger” view is universally shared then fine, I shall disturb you no further. And you will have succeeded in getting rid of another poster who broadly supports the aims of this forum and the Madeleine Foundation. But not necessarily every aspect of the gospel here. My interest is finding out what happened to a missing little girl, and I am sure that is the shared aim of all here. Methods vary though - and in my case you seem to find that a problem.

Why the need to whisper like old woman? It's permitted to talk in normal voice in an open forum I hope even in confrontational discussion. Firstly you are hardly newbie. Secondly you're so wrong. If you care to research my history you will find I advocate different views should be allowed, I just don't support rude posters with (agenda) perhaps? You may want to call it 'stranger danger' whatever..that's down to admin and mod to decide cause I haven't a clue who is stranger and who is danger.
Not supporting gospel one finds strange is fair, since I am not keen on that too - but one doesn't have to be rude to posters who believe whatever they believe so long as they are civilized in manners.

Moving on


Let's put this way : When the police received info. of that kind of sighting, timing is very critical, so driving at break neck speed to get kate back to the Police station to view the CCTV to confirm or not whether it was Maddie is understandable.
To be clearer, Let's put it another way: Had it really been Maddie and had the Police doddled and took their own sweet time wasting the opportunity surely they would get hell from mccanns (had Madeleine been really missing, that is)!

Not only kate was not grateful for the police sense of urgency she actually sounded relief the 'blond girl' wasn't Maddie. Any normal person would have expressed their disappointment or devastation at that, but not kate! Kate was furious as hell they even bothered to take her back to do the verification.

In that sort of circumstances, and as Amaral stated explicitly in his book the mccanns couple were informed about the sighting and reason for u-turning back to the police station, (quoting Amaral "The parents are informed and Kate is asked to return to Portimão to see if it is Madeleine or not. Instead of being full of hope, Kate looks bored for being forced to return to Portimão and seems angry at the speed of the police car which startled police officers"), kate reaction was beyond unreasonable.

Kate stated explicitly in her bewk she was tired and bored with the whole thing ( meaning having to put up with police questionings about her missing child) Now, she didnt expressely say that but she clearly implied it by these words ("it was seven-thirty by the time" - now which normal mother of a missing child has any sense of time, let alone complained of exhaustion at 7.30pm (still quite decent hour imo, not as if it was past midnight) that's one thing.

Perhaps you could point me to the page in her book where she explicitly says that she was bored? That would be helpful in clarifying the point you are trying to make. Because as things stand you seem to be a little confused..

Either you are not reading carefully or I didnt make myself clear. I said "she didnt expressly say that but she clearly implied it by these words "it was seven-thirty by the time..........etc." To me anyway, the special emphasis on the time meant she was observing time, which is usually what bored people do, because they'd enough. So the purposely emphasized time infers she was bored with the whole thing, meaning the police questioning and having to return again to the Police station. She found that tiresome as in bored by then or bored with it. If you disagree, it's your prerogative; and equally mine to observe and opin on it.

Another thing is, she was furious about the entire thing really - car speed, as well as having to wait 10 mins (while PJ load up CCTV and get it working presumably). By her own confession, she gave the impression of someone with a quick and violent temper.
She reacted as if the Police shouldn't have speeded her back to the police station for the identification purpose, even after she'd been shown the image, and knew the reason for the urgency hence speed.

She lied (again) about not being told the reason for the return. Between Amaral and her, I know who I believe - I've no doubt about that!
Alright, for argument sake, even if I were to give her the benefit of doubt, let's put this way, she'd already guessed the reason for the return, as in she said " I cannot overstate how terrifying this was. Had Madeleine been found? Please God. Was she alive? Was she dead? Gerry and I clung on to each other for dear life. [u]I was crying hysterically and praying for all I was worth.

However, my view is she lied about being informed - she gave herself away in those two sentences!
To say her hysterical behavior - crying (and probably cursing and mouthing swear words at the PJ), must have shocked the PJ is an understatement.
Which normal sane and innocent person would react so angrily and hysterically in a situation concerning their missing child?

Do you really not think that crying hysterically and praying is a reasonable reaction in the circumstances?

Yes, crying hysterically or praying isn't unreasonable at all if done for the right reason, but not in her instance as she described.
Quoting her "I was crying hysterically and praying for all I was worth" Again with due respect, either you are not reading properly or not applying your discerning wisdom, The reason she was doing it wasn't because she was anxious over missing Madeleine, but over herself ....it was all about her selfish self. It's in the manner she delivered that statement - she was complaining about the PJ and vexed with the situation. In a nutshell, she's had enough and acting like a spoilt child who can't get her ways. Again, if you interpret it differently, that is your prerogative.

Hey...I am probably not wrong to say she probably expected them to roll out the red carpets, have tea and sandwiches on ready, as well as someone on standby to serve them to her - remember her "Rome is preparing itself" comment, and her other comment the PJ didn't even serve them water? She comes across as difficult and demanding, forgetting the police have a job to do, and generally not behaving befitting someone willing to cooperate or help in the investigation.

She has scored her own goal by literally confirming what Amaral stated in his book about that chapter of investigation.
Kate, in her own words, admitted she was furious as hell and described it as a "torture".

I put it to you, no innocent person, would react that way even had they not been pleased about the PJ in certain aspects. Most people are not totally pleased about every aspect of the police works, but regardless of that, innocence would work closely with police to aid police to find their child. Police are humans after all but most importantly if truthful info and statements are given helping them to eliminate certain things out of the equation they can go about investigating the right direction thoroughly.

Kate behaved as if the PJ were her worst enemies. Not only she didn't volunteer to co-operate, she actually resented them doing their work properly and efficiently as evidenced by that episode. she's just full of complaints about the Police at every turn on every aspect without seemingly any valid reason behind it other than the fact they didn't want the Police to question or inconvenience them at all.

No normal person would object to Police's sense of urgency where timing could make a whole world of difference, nor describe having to wait 10 minutes as "torture", especially in retrospect.

You said in another thread that you have been trained to read books in a particular way. I assume that your teachers meant that you should read it carefully to analyse the use of language and the meaning given. Not that you should put your own interpretation on the pages concerned, introduce other elements and then get all indignant over your interpretation.

No, not me. You got wrong person! With no disrespect I think you are describing yourself.
Written materials are always invariably open for interpretation and subjective to readers, bearing few black and white facts that are unalterable.
Kate has proven herself to be liar over and over, her truthful (not) statement is opened to anyone's interpretation wouldn't you say? Or did you think you were reading her truthful account, nothing but the whole truth, and to be taken like bible?
If you need example of her lies, just for argument sake, what do you make of her interpretation of arguido?
When it's concerning them she said at the LI, it means "persons of interest" - when applying it to Murat in her bewk, she said it means 'official suspect' in a crime!

By way of example: I fail to see how "Had Madeleine been found? Please God. Was she alive? Was she dead? Gerry and I clung on to each other for dear life. [u]I was crying hysterically and praying for all I was worth".
becomes

Their oft-repeated remarks that there is absolutely no evidence she is harmed or she is dead - the fact that they refused to even entertain the possibility that she is likely dead since that is what paedophiles do - history has proven that, is self evident that those remarks of hers are contrived to say the least..

"To say her hysterical behavior - crying (and probably cursing and mouthing swear words at the PJ), must have shocked the PJ is an understatement.
Which normal sane and innocent person would react so angrily and hysterically in a situation concerning their missing child?"


Finally Aiyoyo, if you do wish to debate and discuss some of the issues arising, for heavens sake dont go into attack mode every time someone asks a question or makes a comment that you do not agree with.

Finally Xavier, is that a threat? Well, if someone (not saying it's you) makes a rude comment or come dressed in sheep's clothing if I ever smell one, I reserve my rights to speak my mind.

PeterMac wrote:I love that. On the site called www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree
they include the words.
• For legal reasons, this article will not be open to comments
An interesting article, for he mentions the very reason that we must have a free and fearless press - to root out corruption by high officials. The MPs' expenses scandal was not brought to light by the Police, but by a newspaper.
Whatever we think about the paparazzi, and who doesn't, there must remain a loophole through which they can use their ghastly long lenses to watch people in the public eye behaving inappropriately, to prove wrongdoing, to catch people out in their hypocrisy.
(Quite why hundreds of them have to take the same hundred photos of a D lister going shopping in a track suit is another matter altogether.)
Why then, in this one case, have the press not done so ?
Why do they refuse to ask the important questions when they have the chance ? People talk to the press in a way in which they do not to the police.
Why have they not taken photos of the various protagonists going into secret meetings ?
Why have they, in this one case, failed utterly to do anything remotely useful in the search for the truth about what really happened.

Yes, strange isnt it?

Also, gerry was advocating more than the gag of paparazzi.

He wanted what he termed 'irresponsible' journalists punished. When talking about the litigation and out of court settlements, he insinuated that wasn't enough, because not one reporter was punished over the stories and ugly headlines about them. In other words he wanted them gagged from reporting negatives stories about them without first using investigative journalism, verified with source to see if story is true. It's so laughable because its a two -way sword, investigative journalism might get gerry more 'hurtful' and 'damaging' headlines.

candyfloss wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:Well said. The Royal family, politicians and A Listers get scrutinised and analysed, why not two average unheard-of people whose daughter vanished off the face of the earth. Why are the journos not asking where the proof of abduction is? A basic question. And one which brings us back to the starting point of four years ago.

Could this be the reason......................


Kate managed the news and controlled the English - Correio da Manhã

Maddie case – Press was manipulated in exchange for photoshoots

27 July 2008
Thanks to 'astro' for translation

Journalists far away from the house

The McCanns' first days in England were subject to intense media attention. They allowed themselves to be photographed with their children again, after they had agreed exclusives with televisions and newspapers to cover the return.

Days later, Clarence Mitchell opted for another strategy. He agreed with the English journalists that those would never persecute the McCanns again. In exchange, the couple's spokesman would supply fortuitous meetings, and in case the journalists would fail their compromise, he would exclude them from his contact list.Everyone accepted. When in March CM [Correio da Manhã] tried to speak to the McCanns without going through Clarence Mitchell, we were intercepted by the police. The couple demanded that Portuguese journalists be forbidden from getting close to their house, and their neighbours were advised not to speak.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id166.html

Oh dearie me, these dictators even control their neighbours' free speech! Christ on a bike!

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com/

Blacksmith - second part.

Page 205 is the sudden descent of dogs on the mccanns' apartment, which the mccanns left out of their listings completely at the LI.
They complained about just every headlines but not about the dogs evidence headlines - they daren't remind people about it.