Re: Parents withdraw from Lorraine interview

by Realist 30.04.16 14:47

pennylane wrote:The McCanns are doing what they've always done best. Avoiding the truth!

I think, Penny, a more appropriate description would be that they are practising the noble art of 'damage limitation.'

Other than perhaps having libel on his mind, I still can't understand how Goncala could have formed the opinion that the McCanns would have felt the need to conceal their daughter's body in the event of her death being accidental.

The only other possible explanation, other than the aforementioned, is that he used the word accident/accidental in the context of a euphemism. I would be interested to determine if there is some mode of personal communication available whereby he could clarify this matter. (off the record , of course.)

by Bishop Brennan 30.04.16 14:48

aiyoyo wrote:
...
Likely -

- Clarrie dropped the MCs into shit without Kate's knowledge.
- Kate asked her mate lorraine to pretty pls spread words to tabloids to refute the story.
- Clarrie told to stand in the naughty corner holding onto his ears.

I'd like to second that theory. Very plausible.

The alternative that they would have us believe is:

1. No Anniversary TV appearances were planned
2. Wee Lorraine certainly didn't invite them on the show
3. Bored, the Star invents a story that they had pulled out of a show they hadn't been invited to
4. Clarrie corrects the story

Yup, I'm going with [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]'s

by pennylane 30.04.16 15:07

Realist wrote:
pennylane wrote:The McCanns are doing what they've always done best. Avoiding the truth!
I think, Penny, a more appropriate description would be that they are practising the noble art of 'damage limitation.'

Other than perhaps having libel on his mind, I still can't understand how Goncala could have formed the opinion that the McCanns would have felt the need to conceal their daughter's body in the event of her death being accidental.

The only other possible explanation, other than the aforementioned, is if he used the word accident/accidental in the context of a euphemism. I would be interested to determine if there is some mode of personal communication available whereby he could clarify this matter. (off the record , of course.)

You've got a real bee on your bonnet on this one aye big grin

I've tried to explain that there is a lot of distance between 'accident' and 'murder' that could hang the parents out to dry. For example: sedating 3 toddlers (after hysterical crying heard by neighbor on previous night while parents at tapas bar); and one toddler gets up in drugged state, goes to search for the parents and falls and breaks her neck. This could be classified as an 'accident death,' with a whole slew of serious charges behind it, and it would also include serious charges re the twins welfare as well.

That be one example of 'an accident.'

by aiyoyo 30.04.16 15:16

@BishopBrennan

But the Daily Star's piece is littered with 'speech marks' (quotes) from the family friends.
Unless DS plucked it out of air....
If so, who put ITV up to do the round with tabloids to do the remedial piece?
ITV volunteering info to tabloids to undo something not of their doing would be very odd - poking its nose into something banal like that when surely it is up to Mcs or representative spokesman/family friend to come out and refute it if DS is inaccurate.

If the withdrawal story is fabrication of Daily Star (not sourced from family friend) the Mcs would demand DS retract or sue them, as is their style.
So something very strange is going on in Mc's media control department.

by Bishop Brennan 30.04.16 15:21

pennylane wrote:
...
sedating 3 toddlers (after hysterical crying heard by neighbor on previous night while parents at tapas bar); and one toddler gets up in drugged state, goes to search for the parents and falls and breaks her neck. This could be classified as an 'accident death,' with a whole slew of serious charges behind it, and it would also include serious charges re the twins welfare as well.

That be one example of 'an accident.'

And it's the scenario that is alluded to in Amaral's book. The sedation theory was of course made famous by Gerry's astonishing "tell" on camera when being asked specifically if they had given the kids something. It's always worth another viewing - a classic unconscious give-away and no doubt legendary in crime lectures:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

So no - they won't want any questions on that now that the book is back in bookshops. Even with cuddly Lorraine!

by NickE 30.04.16 15:28

They have to believe that people are stupid.

You don´t need to be a rocket scientist to understand that they are pulling out to avoid answering questions re Amaral's book and their involvement in what happened to Madeleine.

by ChippyM 30.04.16 15:36

As well as the uncomfortable ear scratching in that interview he almost loses his voice on the word 's...aaaa,..ditive', like its really hard to get the word out, i wonder why that would be?

by Realist 30.04.16 15:42

pennylane wrote:

I've tried to explain that there is a lot of distance between 'accident' and 'murder'

No disrespect, Penny, but in the eyes of the law, the only 'distance' between accident and murder is manslaughter. Manslaughter, although the lesser offence, is still a criminal matter with the difference being that it carries a far lesser penalty upon conviction. Anything classified as accidental is not a criminal offence.

A verdict of accidental death would not have jeopardised the McCann's careers, their financial standing, or the custody of their children, whereas a criminal conviction of manslaughter would. I don't personally opine that the McCanns deliberately set out to murder their daughter, au contraire, I am of the opinion that her demise was a direct result of something out of the normal parameter of parental care they did to her. Whether it was a consequence of drugging, smacking, abusing etc. is immaterial, it would still be classified as manslaughter, as opposed to accidental.

In layperson's terms and I stand to be corrected, the basic difference between an action being classified as accidental and manslaughter is that the former is not a consequence of one's actions, whereas the latter is. An action doesn't have to be intentional to be classified as manslaughter, it could for instance, result from reckless behaviour, irresponsibility etc.

by Bishop Brennan 30.04.16 15:50

Realist wrote:
No disrespect, Penny, but in the eyes of the law, the only 'distance' between accident and murder is manslaughter.

And no disrespect to you either, but I'm struggling to see the relevance of your post to the thread? Wasn't it about Lorraine's invitation (or not) to the McCanns? A touchy issue judging from Twitter - and perhaps also here?

by Guest 30.04.16 15:53

Thank you, Bishop.

Stay on topic.

by Realist 30.04.16 15:57

Bishop Brennan wrote:

And no disrespect to you either, but I'm struggling to see the relevance of your post to the thread? Wasn't it about Lorraine's invitation (or not) to the McCanns? A touchy issue judging from Twitter - and perhaps also here?

Indeed it was, Bishop, my only saving grace being that I was merely replying to another poster's understanding of the term, 'accidental.'

by dottyaussie 30.04.16 16:04

Let me get this right then -

They were supposed to appear but then THEY decided against because THEY'RE so devestated - or

They were supposed to appear but then THEY decide THEY didn't want to answer awkward questions - or

They were supposed to appear but ITV decided against it because of public opinion/distancing themselves/they couldn't ask awkward questions - or

They were NEVER supposed to appear anyway

And now even the MSM are arguing about it !! Crikey !!

by Realist 30.04.16 16:10

dottyaussie wrote:Let me get this right then -

They were supposed to appear but then THEY decided against because THEY'RE so devestated - or

They were supposed to appear but then THEY decide THEY didn't want to answer awkward questions - or

They were supposed to appear but ITV decided against it because of public opinion/distancing themselves/they couldn't ask awkward questions - or

They were NEVER supposed to appear anyway

And now even the MSM are arguing about it !! Crikey !!

That is probably about as accurate a description of what has transpired as one is likely to get.

by whodunit 30.04.16 16:40

NickE wrote:They have to believe that people are stupid.

You don´t need to be a rocket scientist to understand that they are pulling out to avoid answering questions re Amaral's book and their involvement in what happened to Madeleine.

And you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that the McCs had planned on sitting down for a sympathetic interview on the anniversary which was to coincide with their final victory over Amaral. It is ludicrous of them to expect people to buy this face saving spin.

by Guest 30.04.16 16:43

I don't know how they thought they would win the appeal.

by plebgate 30.04.16 16:50

Maybe the DS will be Carter Rucked if they do not remove the story.

:emo3:

by **Jill Havern** 30.04.16 17:12

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Is it Animal Cruelty to try to put a cat back into the bag . . .?

P

by canada12 30.04.16 17:27

Full speed ahead, then, for plans for the 10th anniversary. Elton John and lots of balloons and ~~fresh pleas for money~~. To make up for missing the 9th big grin

by **sharonl** 30.04.16 17:31

Lorraine Kelly is Patron to Missing People charity where Kate is ambassador, if she still is ambassador.

What's the truth behind this, did Kate pull out or the TV company?

Surprisingly there is no mention of Madeleine here either

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It is unclear of when this was aired.

Has the worm turned?

by MayMuse 30.04.16 17:36

Page link missing? So maybe the 'worm is wriggling" ?

by **sharonl** 30.04.16 17:48

MayMuse wrote:Page link missing? So maybe the 'worm is wriggling" ?

Just edited to correct that - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **Jill Havern** 30.04.16 17:51

canada12 wrote:Full speed ahead, then, for plans for the 10th anniversary. Elton John and lots of balloons and ~~fresh pleas for money~~. To make up for missing the 9th

~~Ah, but they can't plan that far ahead because she could be found by then!~~

by Guest 30.04.16 17:54

Everyone knew in May 2007 that this was for the long term.

Clarence Mitchell gave up a top job.

So he must have known.

by Realist 30.04.16 17:59

BlueBag wrote:I don't know how they thought they would win the appeal.

They weren't thinking of how they could win the appeal, they weren't the appellant. They were thinking of how they could defend the original judgement.

by Guest 30.04.16 18:00

You say tomato I say tomato.

by **Jill Havern** 30.04.16 18:03

BlueBag wrote:Everyone knew in May 2007 that this was for the long term.

Clarence Mitchell gave up a top job.

So he must have known.

Yep.

And before that, of couse, John McCann gave up his job pdq despite having a wife, kids and mortgage when Maddie could have been found at any moment.

I wonder if any of TM have got mortgages these days?

by Cmaryholmes 30.04.16 18:07

Just trying to imagine the next headline....'Mccanns forced to cancel TV appearances due to vile troll threats outrage' .

by Realist 30.04.16 18:11

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

~~Ah, but they can't plan that far ahead because she could be found by then!~~

Indeed, after all, Monsieur le McCann is constantly reminding his audience, particularly anyone thinking of prosecuting him, 'There's no evidence any harm has befallen Madeleine.'

by Patience 30.04.16 18:12

Cmaryholmes wrote:Just trying to imagine the next headline....'Mccanns forced to cancel TV appearances due to vile troll threats outrage' .

I'm not sure they'd get away with that now. Too many comments made by Joe Public in the comments section of articles questioning why people who either don't believe the McCann version of events or are sympathetic to Goncalo Amaral should be referred to as trolls.

by pennylane 30.04.16 18:13

BlueBag wrote:Everyone knew in May 2007 that this was for the long term.

Clarence Mitchell gave up a top job.

So he must have known.

Not sure BB. I remember his resignation speech, and he looked miffed. I think he was given the push when the McCanns culpability became more evident. He was backed into a corner, just like all those standing shoulder to shoulder with the McCanns, telling the world black is white. His MMU job was gently but firmly whooshed (imo)

Latest topics