‘Do remember in McCann world - there is always more than one version of events.’

http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/McCanns_Chief_Suspects.html
 
McCanns Chief Suspects
 
 
'Saying nothing is the worst crime of all'
 
McCanns 
 
 
Two Questions:
1.     Are they chief suspects?
If not,
2.   Why not?

Those are the questions anyone having watched Richard M. Hall’s documentary who had not previously followed the McCann case will be asking.
The questions that those who have followed have been asking for over seven years!
The Hall documentary, though not exact in some areas, overall was spot on, that is in highlighting the many lies and inconsistencies in the stories told by the McCanns and their buddies.

The very same lies which the many great blogs and  forums seeking justice for young Madeleine McCann have been highlighting for past seven years.

The self same lies, the Portuguese Police and the Leicestershire Police discovered also.
And it is these lies and inconsistencies, the reason why they lied, which is crucial to discovering what happened to Madeleine.
Anyone who believes this child was abducted by a stranger absolutely must give themselves a shake, take a long hard look at the evidence in this case.
And the question they must ask:
Why if the McCanns and their buddies – played NO part in Madeleine’s disappearance – as Gerry McCanns once said, did they LIE?
And not lie once, but many times!
And why pay a guy Clarence Mitchell to lie for them?
His lies cost £70,000 per year, and for seven years, that’s more than a few bucks.
And why would any mother of a missing child refuse to co-operate with police, refuse to answer their questions?
That has got to be the biggie of them all.
If your child was missing, it wouldn’t matter to you if the police asked you to do cartwheels on a cliff edge whilst you answered – For your missing daughter, who you believed was abducted by paedophiles – you’d give your very life.
Kate McCann?   She gave NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

She preferred to spit venom at an elderly resident who lived in the block of flats from where Madeleine vanished, she preferred to call the police officer derogatory names, Fucking Tossers being but one. Such a foul mouthed female.

What makes the mother of a missing child behave in this way, and added to which, she never bothered to go out and physically search for the child.

Any mother I know would have been out there screaming their child's name all night long, in case that child was trapped somewhere, afraid cold, but would be comforted by the sound of her mother's voice, comforted knowing her mummy was looking for her, coming to get her.

Not Kate McCann - She gave NOTHING!

She and Gerry McCann kept undisclosed also from the public, for FIVE years, E.Fits of a suspect.  


The following words ironically from the McCanns online Site.

Day 903 : 22/10/2009     Thursday           22-10-09- NEW ENTRY PAGE CAPTIONS If you stay quiet you are as guilty as those who took her. A little girl stolen? A family torn apart. But saying nothing is the worst crime of all. The world is watching. If you know something. Say something Its never too late to do the right thing One phone call, one email, can end one family’s nightmare Imagine if she was your child. Imagine the pain and the grief.  Imagine if someone like you never came forward     Indeed, Imagine Kate McCann how different things might have been if you had SPOKEN up, if you had not committed the worst crime of all - The Crime of Silence.   Imagine if you, Gerry McCann, and all of your buddies had done the right thing - Not Lied     But that brings us full circle, THE LIES AND INCONSISTENCIES remain.   How could DCI Andy Redwood not have these people in his sights when there is more evidence against them than any other person.   View Richard Hall's DVD's and also the many great sites, such as Joana Morais, McCannfiles/Nigel Moore/Dr Martin Roberts, Pamalan/Gerry McCanns Blog spot/Missing Madeleine, Pat Brown Profiler and articles by the retired police officer known as Peter Mac, so many to mention, the Hi de Ho videos, all the wonderful people who have given so much of their time for justice for this child, together with the thousands of individuals who too show their support for Madeleine Beth McCann.  Who demand that her parents EXPLAIN their story of ABDUCTION as it makes not a jot of sense, and there is no evidence to support it.   The McCanns and their buddies refused to take part in a reconstruction also, and they, have too, particularly Gerry McCann dissed the cadaver dogs as being incredibly unreliable, dogs which alerted correctly in over 200 cases.   Why would they get it wrong in the McCann case, on Kate McCanns clothes?   This is what Kate McCann had to say about their buddies not helping her child by refusing the reconstruction - she is nonchalant.  Any other mother would have been dragging their sorry asses to Portugal.   Not Kate McCann - She gave nothing to Madeleine, she supported her buddies!   Other mums and dad would have wondered why the dogs alerted been distraught at this happening, thinking the worst possible outcome for their daughter.   Not Kate and Gerry McCann - they went into self protect mode!   Gerry McCann said cadaver dogs are incredibly unreliable - he wishes!   And Kate McCann had this to say of the reconstruction :   The proposed reconstruction:    The suggestion of a reconstruction of our movements and other key witnesses at the crime scene and/or surrounding area in the early days following Madeleine's abduction was declined by the PJ as 'not usual' for Portugal. When the PJ finally requested a reconstruction to take place in 2008, Gerry and I were still arguidos and as such would have attended for a reconstruction. Some key witnesses (including some of our friends) declined to attend the planned reconstruction as they were NOT CONVINCED of the aims and usefulness of it. In particular, as the reconstruction was not to be shown to the media (and hence the general public), THEY did not feel it would help to find Madeleine. Had the intention been to show it to the general public, it may have 'jogged' memories and encouraged people to come forward with information. It should be added that other key witnesses were not invited to attend.   END     Oh well that's okay then Kate's buddies didn't feel it would help Madeleine.   'Sorry Maddie mummy, daddy and our buddies, don't see the point in helping you today, better luck next time poppet...'     How can any mother of a missing child dismiss in such an offhand way crucial evidence, and AGREE the non co-operation of her buddies in assisting the police, which might have helped her missing child?       IT IS NOT NATURAL OR NORMAL TO SUPPORT THOSE WHO FAILED AND REFUSED TO HELP YOUR MISSING CHILD.       Again Kate McCann gave NOTHING for Madeleine.  Her support lay with her dodgy buddies.     And of the cadaver dogs Kate McCann said:     The dogs:     We realise that the behaviour of the dogs was the turning point in the investigation for the PJ.  The use of the dogs has proved to be problematic and unreliable in previous cases.       NOT THESE DOGS, KATE AND GERRY McCANN - EDDIE AND KEELA WERE 100% CORRECT IN OVER 200 CASES.   If these dogs are problematic - ONLY FOR YOU, KATE AND GERRY McCANN.  Only problematic for you!     And when she discovered that she had been caught out over the lies they had told regarding the window and shutters being jemmied, having phoned home to tell these lies to her family and friends (you can view members of her family stating what Kate McCann wrongly told them on that night on the Richard Hall DVD's no escaping her lies, her family sit there large as life and repeat what Kate McCann told them.  Kate McCann had this to say:   The Window:   I described to the police exactly what I found that night, as it was and is highly relevant and I knew that every little detail could be helpful in finding my daughter which is our only aim.   The window which is a ground floor window was completely open and is large enough for a person to easily climb through it.  Whether it had been opened for this purpose remains unknown.   It could of course have been opened by the perpetrator when inside the apartment as a potential escape route or left open as a 'red herring.'   END   So Kate McCann now asks us to believe AFTER refusing to assist police with their investigations, not answering questions, and AFTER supporting her buddies in NOT helping her missing child in doing a reconstruction of events, to believe that she honestly FELT  that every little detail was helpful to finding her daughter.   This is the mother who REFUSED TO SUPPLY OVER 40 LITTLE DETAILS, by REFUSING TO ANSWER THE 40 + police questions put to her and when asked if she understood this would be detrimental to finding her daughter, she replied 'if that is what the investigation thinks':   THAT'S ONE POOR EXCUSE FOR A MOTHER FOR ANY CHILD TO BE BURDENED WITH!    A mother who did NOT:   •   Search for her child •   Answer Police questions Who •   Dissed the dogs •   Spoke ill of officers, the very first police officers who arrived on the scent that night.  The Police officers who drove her to the police station the following day. And all other officers thereafter. •   And who fed the world the most outrageous story of abduction the world has ever heard, and will most likely never here its like again. •   Kept from the public for over five years the e.fits of a suspect.  The suspect now the centre of the Met Police Investigation. How unlucky could one child get?   The above paragraph in red, demonstrates the devious mind of Kate McCann, her every word in that paragraph, in particular and the others also, ALL to protect them, to take the story 'elsewhere' cover their tracks.   The one that makes me laugh most, and would be hilariously funny if we did not know she is speaking of her daughter's mysterious disappearance - and after having been found to have LIED ABOUT THOSE SHUTTERS BEING JEMMIED is:   'THAT THE WINDOW AND SHUTTERS WERE OPENED BY THE PERPETRATOR AS A 'RED HERRING.'   'What is funny about it is, it is probably the only true words this woman has spoken.'   'The window and shutters were opened by the perpetrator'   The police did say ONLY Kate McCanns fingerprints were found at the window area?  And Professor Barclay that top British forensic guy, he was of the opinion the crime scene was staged!   Forget abductors, bin men, tractormen, smelly men, long haired men, and everyone else we are expected to believe were hanging around that apartment block that night and NEVER seen by anyone.   Before this case can move anywhere, the stories by the McCanns and their buddies must be tackled, as they are not truthful.   They absolutely MUST take part in a re-enactment of events - but we know that will never take place.   Has DCI Redwood done that - TACKLED THEIR LIES?  If he has, he then has a lot of explaining to do for the UK public whose tax is paying for this investigation.   •   He could start by telling them WHY Gerry McCann changed his story.   •   And why Kate McCann phoned home and told everyone her family members those shutters had been jemmied when they had not.   •   And I'm sure everyone would like to know Andy's explanation as to why Fiona Payne, Rachael Oldfield and Jane Tanner the females in the group said that Kate McCann told them at the dinner table she had left the patio door unlocked on the night of 3rd May 2007 for Madeleine to exit that apartment and go find them.   •   And WHY Kate McCann on televised interview gave an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT VERSION?   I fail to see how DCI Redwood could have been ploughing through this case now for over 3 years and not DISCOVERED WHY THE LIES?   He must have seen, in the police files, and heard them, the McCanns, in their own words in interviews - LIE.   If this group of people are not on his suspect list - something seriously wrong at the MET!   Something needs explaining to the public!   I challenge anyone to read those police files, view the McCanns interviews, the lies and inconsistencies, the statements they have made publicly over the years - and not be suspicious of them being involved at some level in the disappearance of this child.   Read blog above 'Kate McCann Back to Zero'   'How could that FIRST gust of wind in the bedroom have caused the door to slam closed - a gust strong enough to do that, yet it took A SECOND gust to blow open the curtains?'   That FIRST gust we are to believe left the curtains in a closed position, not even gently blowing in the wind when there was an open window and shutter.   I guess though Kate likes a bit of drama.  She was supposedly outside the door, holding the door handle when it slammed shut (yeah!) she couldn't see the window then could she.  For to add to her slamming door story, a story about whooshing curtains, it required a SECOND GUST OF WIND.   Who is she kidding!   Herself obviously, because no one else is buying it!   Ask yourselves also, WHY did Kate McCann when this gust blew the door closed, not look to the window, the obvious thing to do?   SHE DIDN'T.   She said she looked over her shoulder to see if she had closed the patio door behind her?   This was not her original story though, this was one of the embellished versions.   Do remember in McCann world - there is always more than one version of events.   Lost count how many they have told thus far!   Doesn't add up Kate McCann!       l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com 14th August 2014

Doug D

Thank you for posting this article up - I had just been reading it via a link on another thread.

It was only after reading this that I thought Redwood must now be in a strange position. The Videos of Richard Hall are out there and available to all, much like the PJ Files, and it must become obvious that there are inconsistencies in the statements and he can't now dismiss them. If Mr. Smith has corrected the "Murat friend" in Part 4 obviously many people are watching them.

l-azzeri-lie-in-the-sun asks what has DCI Redwood been doing for all this time - maybe he has been trying to find some way round these inconsistencies which is why its taking so long.

Angelique wrote:

l-azzeri-lie-in-the-sun asks what has DCI Redwood been doing for all this time - maybe he has been trying to find some way round these inconsistencies which is why its taking so long.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

"This investigation is ANYTHING but 'normal' and it has NEVER been 'normal' from the very day Madeleine McCann 'disappeared'.

BBC Reporter, June 2014,  in PDL

After the door slammed (which Mrs Fenn never mentioned, even though previously she could heard the patio doors SLIDE open) KM looked into the room and couldn't make out if it was Maddie or the bed sheets she could see.

Just a short while before though, GM had looked at Maddie in the same dark room and thought how beautiful she looked.

There was someone "lying" in the bedroom and I don't think it was Maddie !    

I wonder what little Lorraine Kelly will think of Mr Hall's video?

The words "think" and "Lorraine Kelly" are a contradiction in terms!

Grande Finale wrote:After the door slammed (which Mrs Fenn never mentioned, even though previously she could heard the patio doors SLIDE open) KM looked into the room and couldn't make out if it was Maddie or the bed sheets she could see.

Just a short while before though, GM had looked at Maddie in the same dark room and thought how beautiful she looked.

There was someone "lying" in the bedroom and I don't think it was Maddie !    

Good post imo.

In 1997, the then General Manager of Celtic Football Club, a Mr Jock Brown, was persistently questioned over the likely sale of their stair player Paulo Di-Canio. Rumours were rife that Di-Canio was being sold and Jock Brown repeatedly denied this.

Di-Canio joined Sheffield Wednesday shortly after, and when ridiculed in the press as a liar, Jock Brown held the moral high ground since no one had asked if Di-Canio was being 'traded'. Had this term been used in questioning then a full and open answer would have been forthcoming, and therefore his answers to date had been wholly truthful.

Having observed the quite remarkable and brazen performances of Mr and Mrs over the years, is there anything we should be asking differently ?

IMO

P.S. In fairness, Regi-Blinker did go from Sheffield Wednesday to Celtic at the same time, hence the 'trade'.

P.P.S - slightly off topic I know, maybe a Friday feeling !

Carrry On Doctor wrote:In 1997, the then General Manager of Celtic Football Club, a Mr Jock Brown, was persistently questioned over the likely sale of their stair player Paulo Di-Canio. Rumours were rife that Di-Canio was being sold and Jock Brown repeatedly denied this.

Di-Canio joined Sheffield Wednesday shortly after, and when ridiculed in the press as a liar, Jock Brown held the moral high ground since no one had asked if Di-Canio was being 'traded'. Had this term been used in questioning then a full and open answer would have been forthcoming, and therefore his answers to date had been wholly truthful.

Having observed the quite remarkable and brazen performances of Mr and Mrs over the years, is there anything we should be asking differently ?

IMO

P.S. In fairness, Regi-Blinker did go from Sheffield Wednesday to Celtic at the same time, hence the 'trade'.

Is this the same Jock Brown, Solicitor?

The story makes sense to me now.   

Forgot link   -  http://www.brodies.com/node/429

Grande Finale wrote:After the door slammed (which Mrs Fenn never mentioned, even though previously she could heard the patio doors SLIDE open) KM looked into the room and couldn't make out if it was Maddie or the bed sheets she could see.

Just a short while before though, GM had looked at Maddie in the same dark room and thought how beautiful she looked.

There was someone "lying" in the bedroom and I don't think it was Maddie !    

Despite,
Window open
Shutter up
Curtains flying

Ambience light
She couldn't make out Maddie?

Draught
She couldn't feel the chilly air?

She did not think of going into the room to cover up the children, close the window, shutter and curtains.

She immediately knew Madeleine was taken.

Hmmm what about the twins?  Were they there?  Was she not concerned about them?
 
When she reopens the door slightly to peep in, she can't have missed feeling the draught, yet she did feel it.  Or she would have mentioned it, which would then raise question why she did not go into the room to investigate the reason for the draught and to check that all her children were alright.  
We know she did not do any of those things or she would have told the Police.

That's why I believe the twins did not sleep in their room that night.

She did not think of going into the room to cover up the children, close the window, shutter and curtains.

She immediately knew Madeleine was taken.

Hmmm what about the twins?  Were they there?  Was she not concerned about them?
-----------------------------------------------------------

'concerned'? Obviously NOT!

She LEFT them, according to her, EXACTLY where they were when she went BACK to the tapas, to 'raise the alarm'.

SO, her last two kids left in a darkened room, out of her sight, with an UNCAUGHT and predatory 'burglartor/abductor' on the loose!

Leaving the 'scene' WINDOW WIDE OPEN, SHUTTER RAISED, CURTAINS OPEN!

How would she have EXPLAINED when the whole 'gang' rushed back to the apartment and had then found the twins 'gone' as well?

Because 'burglator/abductor' snatched her last two kiddies when she 'ran out of the apartment' to go BACK to the tapas restaurant, out of SIGHT.

And we KNOW she did that, leaving the twins ALONE, in total danger of 'abduction, or worse'  because we have this from................GERALD McCANN!

G. MCCANN: "The first thing that went straight through my head and I think -- it was just disbelief. I said, she can't be there, she can't be there. And I was running to the apartment with Kate. And I've checked. And she said, I've checked, I've checked, she's not there."

"And I ran into the bedroom. And I found it just as Kate described. And when I saw that window pushed wide open and the shutter up, which we'd left down the whole week, it was horrible. And I -- lowered the shutter and I went through the front door. And I was able to lift the shutter from outside which -- "
------------------------------------------

"And i FOUND it JUST as Kate had 'described'"

"when i SAW that window pushed wide OPEN and the shutter UP."

"and I LOWERED the shutter, and LIFTED the shutter from outside" (thus altering/contaminating the 'crime' scene, himself!)

He never EXPLAINED HOW he managed to LIFT the shutter from the outside with his 'fingers' with the heavy shutter having been lowered to 'rest' on the 'sill'. Guess he must have been able to squeeze his 'tiny' fingers between the bottom of the lowered shutter and the sill.  'Tiny' fingers for 'Tiny' tears!

He had no 'jemmy' did he?

And his 'efforts' to 'raise' the shutters are quite seperate from Fiona P AND her mothers 'efforts to 'raise' the shutter, from outside! (who also had no access to a 'jemmy'!)

Were the shutters 'raised' or 'lowered' when the GNR/PJ 'arrived' at the 'scene'?

Anyway,

The bottom line is, Kate McCann would have us 'believe' she LEFT the twins in THAT 'exposed' room, out of sight, again, with an 'abductor/burglator' UNCAUGHT, on the 'prowl' outside her apartment!

And IF pigs could fly..................

That's the thing that struck me in the early days. The twins wouldn't have been that heavy and as a mother 
I'm pretty sure my natural reaction would've been to scoop one up in each arm and go to the balcony and scream for my husband. 
Also in the days after the supposed abduction, leaving them in childcare! They wouldn't have been out of my sight for more than a second. 

It still angers me to this day how supporters said "we've all done it". 
Er, no, we haven't all done it.

If Gerry tried to open the shutters, as he said, then why were Kate's fingerprints the only ones found on said shutters?  

TMH wrote:If Gerry tried to open the shutters, as he said, then why were Kate's fingerprints the only ones found on said shutters?  

Those prints were in a very strange place, always puzzled my what contortions would have to be done to place thumb prints like they were.

Nina wrote:

TMH wrote:If Gerry tried to open the shutters, as he said, then why were Kate's fingerprints the only ones found on said shutters?  

Those prints were in a very strange place, always puzzled my what contortions would have to be done to place thumb prints like they were.

Perhaps he used Kate as a jemmy?

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:The words "think" and "Lorraine Kelly" are a contradiction in terms!

LIKE

G. MCCANN: The first thing that went straight through my head and I think -- it was just disbelief. I said, she can't be there; she can't be there. And I was running to the apartment with Kate. And I've checked. And she said, I've checked, I've checked, she's not there.




Another ooops moment brought to you by gerry, the man who can't stop giving.

He tells us the first thing that went through his head indicating there would/should be at least one more in his list, yet, he doesn't tell what the second thing he thought was.


I think allows for others to think otherwise.

He uses a qualifier STRAIGHT

He has two qualifiers in the first sentence making it sensitive
A qualifier is a word which when removed, doesn't change the intent/meaning of the sentence.

 

Why does he need to tell us it went straight though his head?

How else would it go given he has just found out his daughter is allegedly missing from her bedroom?

He doesn't tell us it was disbelief, only that he thought it was disbelief.

He doesn't tell us it was disbelief; he uses a qualifier JUST.


Not only does he use a qualifier, the qualifier is a word which minimises/reduces the statement.

A strong sentence would be "The first thing that went though my head was disbelief"




Instead we have a weaker sentence with two qualifiers, incomplete list (there was no secondly) Minimising, and reduced commitment

 

Why would he need to tell us he only thought it was disbelief, just disbelief at that?

Why would he minimise his reaction?

I think -- it was just disbelief.

Does this pause indicate self-editing?

 




I said, she can't be there; she can't be there. 

Anything in the negative has to be noted and marked as sensitive.
Here he repeats it twice making it even more sensitive.

This is where he drops himself right in it.

 

She can't be there

Surely he means she can't NOT be there or the easier she MUST be there or even easier she can't be gone.

He doesn't say that though and, if he doesn't say it, I can't say it for him.
If she can't be there, where then does he say she can be?
If you look at it logically, it would read as Maddie being there when she shouldn't be.

She should have been somewhere else and was found unexpectedly back in their apartment.

This would make sense if, perhaps, she was supposed to be in another apartment perhaps being babysat by whatever missing adult whose turn it was to have a sickie and somehow got out of that apartment and made her way back to her own apartment which was 5a.
It would fit in with his she can't be there sentence since it would continue ' She can't be there... she was supposed to be in xyz'


And I was running to the apartment with Kate.

And at the beginning of a sentence indicates missing information.
What information is missing between hearing Maddie was missing and running to the apartment?

Why would he need to miss information out?
Note also the use of the word with which indicates distancing.

He is as far from kate as is possible in the sentence making it sensitive

The expected would be WE RAN to the apartment showing unity

Instead we have distancing between him and kate.

All of which make it sensitive

TO explains why something was done.
Often the subject will feel the need to explain why something happened of was done as they anticipate being asked why did you do such and such? Making it sensitive.

 

 

And I've checked. And she said, I've checked, I've checked, she's not there.

This sentence is highly sensitive.

AND at the beginning of a sentence indicates missing information.

Here we have two sentences beginning with AND.
A total of 3 consecutive sentences beginning with AND Making this highly sensitive. What information is missing and why is there a need to hide information?
Note also out of chronological order.
He is running to the apartment yet he says he also checked.
He hasn't said he/they got to the apartment and checked.
I've checked is repeated 3 times as well making it highly sensitive (3 is also the liar's number Mark McClish)
He doesn’t tell us kate said only that SHE said.
Who is SHE?

Why said and not the stronger told me?
Their child is missing, allegedly abducted yet there doesn't seem to be much urgency
 Why checked rather looked or searched which would imply some form of urgency?
What is his definition of checking?
From previous statements, their idea of checking is listening at a window or from the sitting room, not physically going into the bedroom and making sure they were safely asleep and covered given it was chilly.
As kate told us, if the door hadn't allegedly slammed (caused by non existent wind and going against the laws of physics) she wouldn't have gone into their bedroom.
 How did he check?
Where did he look?
How long did his check take?

What was asked or said to kate for her to say she had checked twice?

Who else was there apart from kate and gerry when she said I’ve checked?

What did kate's check consist of?
Where did she check?

And she said, I've checked, I've checked, she's not there.
Who is she?
She doesn't say Maddie's not there.
At least she tells us where she isn't, unlike gerry, who said she can't be there.


Out of the 48 words we have in this part:


She can't be there (4 words - 8 words total) repeated twice
She's not there is said once.

I've checked (2 words - 6 words total) repeated thrice
Out of 5 sentences we have 3 sentences beginning with AND
AND at the beginning of a sentence indicates missing information, so, we have 3 sentences that begin with missing information.
Why would gerry need to omit information?
Why would he need to omit information in regard to what happened when kate told him Maddie was missing?




 

And I ran into the bedroom. And I found it just as Kate described. And when I saw that window pushed wide open and the shutter up, which we'd left down the whole week, it was horrible. And I -- lowered the shutter and I went through the front door. And I was able to lift the shutter from outside which --

So much sensitivity here

5 sentences in total and 5 sentences beginning with AND making this super sensitive.

AND at the beginning of a sentences indicates missing information.

Why is he concealing information?
What information is he concealing?

 

And I ran into the bedroom.




AND at the beginning of a sentences indicates missing information.




He has just told us he WAS running to the apartment, he had checked, now he tells us he ran into the bedroom.




This is out of chronological order making it sensitive.




He should had said I ran to the apartment, I ran into the bedroom, I checked.




Which bedroom did he run into?




He doesn't say he ran into the children's bedroom, or their bedroom.




 




And I found it just as Kate described.




AND at the beginning of a sentences indicates missing information.




Note the qualifier JUST, a word used to minimise downwards.




Why not say I found it as kate described/said or like kate described/said?




He talks about the window and shutter but makes no mention of Maddie's bed or the twins.




 




 




And when I saw that window pushed wide open and the shutter up, which we'd left down the whole week, it was horrible.




AND at the beginning of a sentences indicates missing information.




Here he uses past tense in relation to what he saw which is tense appropriate.




Note he uses the first person singular pronoun I in relation to what he saw which is appropriate.




He then uses the pronoun WE, which indicates unity and shared co-operation in relation to the shutter, which is also, appropriate since it was something they both did.
THIS is close, THAT is distancing.
Here he distances himself from the window.
Why THAT window and not THE window?
For there to be a THAT there has to be a THIS
Note he uses a qualifier, in this case PUSHED.
A qualifier is a word that when removed, doesn’t change the meaning of the sentence.
Why does he need to tell us it was pushed wide open and not simply wide open?
Qualifiers weaken a statement.
WHICH explains why something happened, in this case the shutters being up and the window open.
He is anticipating being asked about the shutters and window being open.
What is the IT that was horrible?
What is his definition of horrible?








And I -- lowered the shutter and I went through the front door.

AND at the beginning of a sentences indicates missing information.
Given his daughter is supposedly missing allegedly abducted, why would he tamper with the crime scene?
The window and shutter are supposedly open presumably by the abductor so why would he lower the shutter from inside the bedroom thus erasing important evidence and possibly contaminating or removing vital forensic evidence such as prints, hair, skin cells or fibres?
He tells us he went out through the front door, why was it important for him to tell us it was the front door which was next to their bedroom.
Why not simply say I went outside and I was able to/ managed to lift their shutter?
Why was the front door sensitive to him?
He doesn't tell us how hard it was, how far he managed to lift it and how noisy it was.
No one else has mentioned how noisy the shutters were when being raised or lowered.
Metal shutters are by their nature noisy.




And I was able to lift the shutter from outside which...




AND at the beginning of a sentences indicates missing information.
Why were his prints not found on the outside of the shutter and kate's were?
Why did he go outside and lift the shutter up again contaminating the crime scene


This section contains 60 words
In this part we have 5 sentences
AND starts each of the 5 sentences indicating a lot of missing information.
Why would an innocent person conceal information concerning what they saw and did on finding their daughter missing, allegedly abducted.
There are 6 first person singular pronouns I where he takes ownership of what he is saying
There is one pronoun WE in relation to leaving the shutters down
There is a pause where he could be self editing when he says I-- Lowered...
Could he have been about to say something else?
There is distancing between him and kate when he says "I was running to the apartment with kate"
The expected would be WE, indicating unity and shared co-operation, yet he uses WITH which indicates he perhaps didn't want to be there
An example could be mom and I went shopping- something I enjoy doing and wanted to do.
We went shopping, which shows unity,
I went shopping with mom, shows distancing, I didn't want to go shopping.
Note the distance between I (gerry) and kate, they are as far apart as they can get in the sentence.
It indicates tension and possible relationship issues.
Having a child go missing would bring them close together at that point as they seek to find their missing child.
I would expect to see WE in relation to going back to the apartment and searching


Out of a total of 10 sentences, there are 8 sentences beginning with AND
All the sentences beginning with AND start the moment he and kate go back to the apartment.

This shows there is a lot of missing information in regard to what they actually said and did than what they have told us in this statement.
Why would there be a need to conceal information if you have nothing to hide and did nothing wrong.

I would be asking a lot of questions regarding this sensitve time, since it is clear he is not telling us everything.

Thanks Hobs!

parapono wrote:Thanks Hobs!

ditto

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:The words "think" and "Lorraine Kelly" are a contradiction in terms!

Very good. I wonder if she will even watch it?

Gerrys version of events regarding the shutters is farcical anyone with half a brain entering a scene such as this would automatically say to everyone around them don't touch anything call the police but we are led to believe a highly educated person such as a doctor just waltzed straight in there shut the window  and  pulled the shutter down . It just would not happen and it didn't .

Even if say he had gone into auto pilot by the time it had registered what had happened and he approached the window ( navigating 2 travel cots with sleeping babies )  to pull the shutter down he would have thought shit no I shouldn't.

even when us humans find ourselves in life death situations we can think logically it is only afterwards when the adrenaline rush as gone and you actually sit down and think about what has happened  that you might then end up a gibberish mess .Then later when you look back on things wonder how the hell you coped but we do humans are highly resilient creatures especially when faced with danger .


Gerry due to the nature of his job  is used to making decisions under immense stress and also keeping a cool head so if this story was accurate Gerrys first reaction would have been 'don't touch anything call the police ' .

Tie in the fact that only Kates fingerprints were found Gerrys version could not have happened unless he had been wearing gloves which holiday makers don't tend to wear when eating their evening meal .

This whole story is like a giant piece of swiss cheese so many holes !

The McCanns are clearly masters of Quantum Physics.

The whole "abduction" is part of a bizarre Schrodinger's Cat type experiment where she is both dead and adbucted and somehow neither all at once.

jeanmonroe wrote:
G. MCCANN: "The first thing that went straight through my head and I think -- it was just disbelief. I said, she can't be there, she can't be there. And I was running to the apartment with Kate. And I've checked. And she said, I've checked, I've checked, she's not there."

The bit I've put in bold and italics above is weird! Surely he would have said, 'She must be there, she must be there.' I mean, why wouldn't he expect Madeleine be in the apartment if that's where they left her?

frost wrote:
Tie in the fact that only Kates fingerprints were found Gerrys version could not have happened unless he had been wearing gloves which holiday makers don't tend to wear when eating their evening meal .

They don't tend to move fridges around either, so...

frost wrote:Gerrys version of events regarding the shutters is farcical anyone with half a brain entering a scene such as this would automatically say to everyone around them don't touch anything call the police but we are led to believe a highly educated person such as a doctor just waltzed straight in there shut the window  and  pulled the shutter down . It just would not happen and it didn't .

Hi frost. Gerry also went outside and tried to pull the shutter up from outside.
Let me think now. Your daughter has disappeared and one of the first things you do is go outside and see if you can raise the shutter.
You don't contact the police, set up search parties, scream her name from the rooftops - no, if you're Gerry McCann you go outside and try to lift the shutter.
Why?

I recall that 2 ex detectives or policemen went from England and looked at the evidence of windows and shutters and said words to the effect ,that  finger print or fingers prints were on the outside of shutters and I think ,that they knew it was kates,does anyone else recall that ? it was on video I watched . joyce1938.

frost said ''wearing gloves which holiday makers don't tend to wear''


but some people DO take gloves on holiday-who knows whether they wear them?

parapono wrote:Thanks Hobs!

I found Hobs' blogspot earlier, I really enjoy reading her posts, fascinating:

http://tania-cadogan.blogspot.co.uk/

worriedmum wrote:frost said ''wearing gloves which holiday makers don't tend to wear''


but some people DO take gloves on holiday-who knows whether they wear them?

They are in a stationary drawer along with paper clips, rubber bands and highlighter so maybe used for changing the ink in a printer.

Nina wrote:

worriedmum wrote:frost said ''wearing gloves which holiday makers don't tend to wear''


but some people DO take gloves on holiday-who knows whether they wear them?

They are in a stationary drawer along with paper clips, rubber bands and highlighter so maybe used for changing the ink in a printer.

Yes they may.