Quotes from mccanns and team...

During a BBC interview, - Kate Mc. ;
"Looking at it from where we are now, I don't feel we were irresponsible, I feel we are very responsible parents."

We dont feel this, we feel that....it's all about them?

hello...mr and mrs mccanns .....Responsible parents dont lose their child from neglect -

All their living brain cells occupied with $$$- no wonder none left to apply elsewhere.

Mr McCann said: "We were dining 50 yards away. We could see the apartment where we were. It was almost like dining in our own garden.


I think Gerry needs a white stick fgs or he had on dark glasses. The patio Doors as we all know could not be seen from the Tapas as it was blocked with hedging/flowers.
.

I think Gerry needs to learn to tell the truth - does he think we are all so stupid and gullible that we will believe anything that comes out of his mouth. people in PDL checked it out and it was NOT 50 yards away and their sight was blocked. FACT.

Anywhere 50 yards in another premises is not quite the same as in your own enclosed compound!

That is beside the point, they went out of their flat leaving the children alone and while they get pissed.

It has always puzzled me why the McCanns could set up interviews and state as facts things that are not quite true and not be challenged. It's as though their word is "law" and so they can make it up as they go along. I think the media have hung onto every word because it's "meat" for their papers and sells.

But there is also the possibility that the Police in Britain and in Portugal are letting them say what they want, be it true or not, because they may slip up - though it appears they do continuously, but still nothing happens. So maybe eventually the McCanns will go too far and drop themselves in it once and for all. It will be too late then as it will be on film.

Angelique

Angelique

This has always been something that has interested me too, I don't know whether anything like this could ever be used as evidence but the number of lies and misleading detail and facts told by TM should be collated somewhere , it would be interesting to see them all put together

It was our holiday too...

YNG wrote:Angelique
This has always been something that has interested me too, I don't know whether anything like this could ever be used as evidence but the number of lies and misleading detail and facts told by TM should be collated somewhere , it would be interesting to see them all put together

Some time ago I started doing this but didn't finish it. Since you ask, here it is.
Lies or truth
Throughout the whole of this fascinating and mysterious case there has been a history of the participants being less than candid, or as it was famously once put, ‘being economical with the ‘vérité’
I want to examine, with examples, the differences between outright lies, Freudian slips, which may or may not indicate the truth, and statements which are probably true.
In any criminal case it is usual to find differences between the recollections of witnesses. The human brain is wired to force an interpretation or explanation onto what it sees and hears. Optical illusions, and almost the whole world of conjuring and magic depend on this.
So stating as fact something which turns out not to be quite right is not in itself unusual, nor indicative of any malicious intent. One may simply be mistaken. How often does one hear, or indeed oneself use the expression “I could have sworn that X or Y...” - a clear admission that one has been mistaken, that one’s senses have deceived.

The way in which the objective truth is found for court purposes is for witness statements to be checked and cross checked against each other, and against the objective facts as they may be observed subsequently and tested by the techniques of modern forensic science.
If witness A says he was somewhere and witness B says that A was somewhere else, then one or other is at best mistaken. If an accused says he did not enter and has never been inside a particular building, but his fingerprints are found, then he is, at best, mistaken, but more usually, lying.

In this case we find several different levels of “vérité.
1 Truth, independently verifiable as such.
2 Simple mistake
3 Lies, independently verifiable as such.

Consider also the fourth category, that of the ‘Freudian slip’.
from Wikipedia - A Freudian slip, or parapraxis, is an error in speech, memory, or physical action that is interpreted as occurring due to the interference of some unconscious ('dynamically repressed') wish, conflict, or train of thought, or more simply “An error that reveals someone's subconscious mind”

In this case what is said may appear to be an error, and the speaker will usually try to justify it as such, but it is thought by classical psychoanalysts that the unconscious mind is in a sense ‘forcing’ the speaker to tell the truth.
Examples are legion. So the next category is

4 Freudian slip. Probably the truth or close to it, but denied as such by the speaker, who will probably seek to put the statement into the category of Mistake

There is a further category in this case, which is close to the first category of ‘Truth’. Statements which are very probably true, but which contradict either directly or by implication other statements which have already been made and either accepted as true, or accepted as part of the scenario. The statement may not be independently verifiable, and would on closer examination probably be disavowed by the speaker as being outside any supposed ‘story line’.

I want to label this category of revealing statement
5 Inadvertent truth

Let us now look at some of the many things said by various of the cast of this drama. And if we think that is too thespian, remember always Clarence Mitchell’s notorious “They don't cry in public, but plenty of tears are shed 'backstage’”

We are not responsible for her DEATH GM and also CM speaking for them
Category - #4 Freudian slip, indicating that they know she is dead

Show us the body and prove we did IT GM
Category - #4 Freudian slip, indicating that they know she is dead

If she is dead then she is dead, but not by their hand. CM
Category - #5 Inadvertent Truth, indicating that they all know she is dead

Shutters jemmied open. This was reported to and by at least four family members and told verbatim to the press in various places. It is clearly not a case of chinese whispers.
Category - # 3 LIE. Quickly discovered to be such by the first police officers at the scene.
Consequence. The McCanns then quickly have to alter their story to the one about the patio doors being left unlocked. Unlocked doors, with cameras, passports, money credit cards, mobile phones, plane tickets or booking information, lap top computers, video cameras and so on left unattended in the apartment. And at least 2 living small children as well.

“Door open more then when WE HAD LEFT IT” KM
Category - # 5 Inadvertent truth.
Comment: It is very possibly the truth, but the logical corollary of this is that to the knowledge or belief of the McCanns no one had been in the apartment since they left at 8.30. If even Gerry McCann had made his alleged visit Kate would not have been able to say this, as she would not have known how Gerry had left the door on that occasion. So the story about the half hourly checks is now exposed as a lie, but another truth has been substituted.

I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleine’s disappearance in the long term. GM
Category - # 5 inadvertent truth
The only logical corollary of this is that GM knows even at that early stage that she will not be found alive in the near or medium future

“I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances.” KM
Category - # 5 inadvertent truth
I believe that here KM is not only telling an inadvertent truth, but also is forced by the Freudian slip into doing so. She uses again the telling “IT” which they both used frequently. ‘We wish we had been there when “IT” happened.’

There is a wholly innocent explanation for any material the police may or may not have found. Clarence Mitchell
Category - This defies belief or analysis. It is such a crass, foolish, idiotic thing to say, that it defies belief that anyone with a scintilla of intelligence could say it. It is a total denial of known facts, a stupid juvenile attempt at an exculpatory statement. Nevertheless, he said it.

“Kate and Gerry are realistic enough to know that Madeleine may be dead and it would be a tragedy that she is found as such, because it rules out the hope that she is alive...” Clarence Mitchell
Category - again, outside any reasonable categorisation.
‘If she is dead she is not alive’ - is perfectly logical and reasonable, but the contorted way in which Mitchell tries to add some sort of gravitas turns it into a ludicrous statement.

...there’s no evidence that Madeleine is dead and there’s no evidence to implicate us in her DEATH.... GM
Category - #4 Freudian slip, or possibly Inadvertent truth. Here, as on other occasions Gerry talks of her death. Not as a remote possibility, but in terms which make it clear that he, subconsciously at least, considers it a fact.

Find the body and prove we killed her! GM
Category - #4 Freudian slip, (though possibly or probably #5 Inadvertent truth)

I was sure immediately that she didn't walk out of that room. KM
Strange intermediate category. #3 LIE, or just unthinking nonsense, because she immediately follows it by saying she thought Madeleine might have gone through to her and Gerry's bedroom. To do so, Madeleine would have to have 'walked out of that room.'

Blue tennis bag GM and CM deny its existence
BUT in two photos taken by the police and now in the public domain it is clearly visible on the second shelf of the wardrobe in the children’s room.
Category - #3 LIE.
Commentary, why would you lie about something apparently as simple as a tennis bag, when you had been boasting to the world on the blog about playing tennis twice a day for the whole holiday.

Blue tennis bag
"There was nothing of that size that you could hide a, - a tennis racquet in or anything like that, it would have been just purely, if they had anything…” Payne, rogatory Interview, talking about the bag, but denying that GM ever had one
Category - #4 Freudian slip
Comment - His subconscious intended to say ‘hide a body.’

There is important information, to which they do not have access, that are in the possession of the British and Portuguese authorities” Mitchell
Category - Pure Mitchell drivel. It is a ludicrous and idiotic thing to say. How can one possibly one assess the importance of information to which one did not have access? How does one even know, rather than suspect, that there is, rather than ‘might be’ such evidence.



As I say I did not finish it, but others may want to correct, alter or add

One of the factors that made me think about what really had happened was an article in the press on or about 10th June 2007. The link here is to a Daily Mail article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-461019/McCanns-wind-tour-missing-Madeleine.html

I read a similar article in either the Observer or the Independent on Sunday where the journalist commented ( as an aside, not to the Mccanns directly) that they thought the choice of the word " grieve" was a strange one, given that the Mccanns were saying that they believed Madeleine to be alive, not dead. And subsequent press reports quoting either the Mccanns or Mitchelll said that they could not grieve because unlike parents who have to deal with the death of a child, they did not know whether Madeleine was alive or dead.

There is no reference in any online press report from the Observer or Independent from the 10th/11th June which reflects what I know I read at the time. So clearly it was edited out before it was made available electronically.

Is this another example of the subsconscious/unconscious coming into play?

I think a lot of information about this case has 'disappeared' from the net

Hi this is pretty revelent i believe thanks for posting up so well i agree we may be able to think more on these terms for a while,its good to be reminded,joyce1938 why cant i send this again please?

joyce1938 wrote:Hi this is pretty revelent i believe thanks for posting up so well i agree we may be able to think more on these terms for a while,its good to be reminded,joyce1938 why cant i send this again please?

Bear with us joyce1938

petermac wrote, ''As I say I did not finish it, but others may want to correct, alter or add.''

Excellent work there petermac, and deserving of its own thread.

PeterMac wrote:

This has always been something that has interested me too, I don't know whether anything like this could ever be used as evidence but the number of lies and misleading detail and facts told by TM should be collated somewhere , it would be interesting to see them all put together

Some time ago I started doing this but didn't finish it. Since you ask, here it is.
Lies or truth



As I say I did not finish it, but others may want to correct, alter or add[/quote]
....................

Super piece of work PeterMac ,

I agree with JM this should go on it's own thread , then when completed possibly onto the Research & Analysis thread .

Possible title - The Body of Lies

I agree and well done PeterMac.

It needs a thread all of it's own in the Library, so that PeterMac can add to it, if he wishes, as and when.

That is a fantastic piece of work Peternmac, It does deseve a Thread of it's own where you can add to.


Love the title that YNG posted. "Body of Lies"....Brilliant

Nothing to add.
Just want to pop in and say I enjoyed reading the additions. Thanks

I'd like to comment on the Gaspars' statement. I do not know whether it is true or not, they could have been mistaken or, for whatever reason, lying. However, for now let's go with the theory that they did hear correctly what David Payne said to Gerry McCann. . I don't think that anyone else has raised the point that, for a man to make a remark like that, he would need to be 100% sure that he was speaking to a fellow paedophile, "one of his own kind". A "normal" father would be outraged and immediately cut himself and his children off from that person forever, not to mention reporting the incident to the police for fear of what is going on in the other family. No way would anyone say it to a casual friend on the off chance that he might agree with you.

Jean wrote:A "normal" father would be outraged and immediately cut himself and his children off from that person forever, not to mention reporting the incident to the police for fear of what is going on in the other family. No way would anyone say it to a casual friend on the off chance that he might agree with you.

Indeed

and

Just as a matter of interest, how was another member (Candyfloss) able to edit my previous comments?

Candyfloss is a moderator.

Jean, we welcome you being here.....but please be careful about what you post cos the McCann's libel lawyers are watching us!

Anything slightly naughty has to be edited I'm afraid

I find it hard to get my head round that mccanns would actually retain their lawyers just to monitor this forum.

Must be damn good money or the lawyers are damn bored and short of work.

Is vigilanting this board behavior of innocents with nothing to fear? Errrrrrrrr.............?

aiyoyo wrote:Kate, and her husband Gerry hope the book will be read by
Madeleine’s abductors and even by their daughter, who will turn eight
next month.

HO HO HO......what can I say?

If Madeleine does get the chance to read the book I hope Kate has told her how much she's sorry for the situation she's found herself in for the past 4 years.