A tidal wave of tosh

I see the Express has a 8 page pull-out. I was in a newsagents today and saw that the Sun has a 10 pager. 

All of that paper used to obfuscate the truth and to peddle nonsense.

So now it's a woman? Give us a break!


I won't grace this rubbish with the usual IMO disclaimer.

Your thoughts?

I just don't know what to say

I think this is press revenge. 10 years ago the press were called to - for them - a humdinger of a story. When reports from Portugal were exposing lies and inconsistencies they reported it. Then they got sued. Waiting to get their own back being ever so careful not to get sued again - the Supreme Court hearing has allowed them to print negative stuff dressed up with outrage of course - and this daily diet of tosh makes it so ever so more obvious that it is tosh so the true story becomes ever so more obvious. Don't mess with the press - the McCann's are no longer controlling this they are getting payback for those payouts. The papers are never going to let this drop until the truth comes out on and on it will go until someone cracks. It is an alternative view I know but one day a drink driver the next a woman the next a gang the next etc etc - the reader thinks Ok it is not these things is it - so what is it? Bingo ! Pennies drop everywhere. So print the 48 questions dressed up as outrage but those 48 questions still remain unanswered.

coati mundi wrote:I see the Express has a 8 page pull-out. I was in a newsagents today and saw that the Sun has a 10 pager. 

All of that paper used to obfuscate the truth and to peddle nonsense.

So now it's a woman? Give us a break!


I won't grace this rubbish with the usual IMO disclaimer.

Your thoughts?

Is this the same eight page supplement as featured exclusively in the Mirror very recently? 

Boring!

suzyjohnson wrote:I just don't know what to say

I can think of one or two expletives .

Verdi wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Heartbreaking? Madeleine's fate is heartbreaking. Their exploitation and deceit are revolting.  If anyone can stomach watching the interview they deserve a medal.

The media is certainly vomiting up this nonsense like a tidal wave. Almost as if they are trying to re-asure THEMSELVES rather than the readers. It has gone beyond absurd.

I was talking to a friend today who is pro McCann with whom I had discussed this case a few weeks ago. She remarked on the 10yr anniversary. I asked her whether she had yet looked at Peter Hyatt's embedded confessions or Amaral's book, which I had suggested she start with. She had not and had no intention of looking because she said 'I just can't believe it'. No interest whatsoever in any other belief but their total innocence and a definite abduction all straight out of newspapers, despite no evidence to support. Amazing isn't it? And worrying!!!!

tara wrote:I was talking to a friend today who is pro McCann with whom I had discussed this case a few weeks ago. She remarked on the 10yr anniversary. I asked her whether she had yet looked at Peter Hyatt's embedded confessions or Amaral's book, which I had suggested she start with. She had not and had no intention of looking because she said 'I just can't believe it'. No interest whatsoever in any other belief but their total innocence and a definite abduction all straight out of newspapers, despite no evidence to support. Amazing isn't it? And worrying!!!!

Surely the University of Huddersfield should be studying this worryingly irrational example of apparently incurable blind belief?

" I just​ can't believe​ it " 

Not " I don't believe it " 

Burying the head in the sand , denial not wanting to believe that people can possibly cover​ up the​ death​ of their​ child .

I was looking​ at photos of my friends grandchildren last​ week , she mentioned photos of​ Madeleine in the media knowing I followed​ the case​ . Before I left I suggested she look up the " make up photo " and​ get back to me​ .
Later​ that night​ she​ text me absolutely horrified and appalled , asking​ where she could​ find more . I directed her here suggesting she started with The​ Truth​ of the Lie then go​ from there , she's​ in poor health and​ waiting to go for major​ surgery and​ finds it difficult to concentrate​ . A great​ judge of character with an open mind​ , I'll be interested to​ see how far she's got .

tara wrote:I asked her whether she had yet looked at Peter Hyatt's embedded confessions or Amaral's book, which I had suggested she start with. She had not and had no intention of looking because she said 'I just can't believe it'. No interest whatsoever in any other belief but their total innocence and a definite abduction all straight out of newspapers, despite no evidence to support.

If anyone believes total innocence and definite abduction through the medium of newspapers I think whoever is missing a vital component.  Press coverage of this case has never been consistent since day one - indeed, in the very early days there was some extremely damning press reports.  Why else would the McCanns legal representation have taken action against the Express Group etc.

Goncalo Amaral's book is essential reading for anyone interested in the case of Madeleine McCann but it should be understood that Snr Amaral's view of the case was formulated during his time as case coordinator for the PJ - largely dependent on the McCann gang storyline.  As the investigation developed and turned more towards parental culpability alas, Snr Amaral was removed from the case so, at that stage, his work was stymied.  I would dearly love to know how he views the case ten years later.

Moving on to Peter Hyatt and his embedded confession, it's important to recognize the fact that statement analysis is not  definitive evidence of a crime - it is but a tool to assist crime investigation, that's where it begins and ends.  It could be spot on it could be way out - analysis of McCann type behaviour is way down on the list of priorities, as fascinating as it might be to some.  Same with body language, could mean something might mean nothing.  I notice today mention has been made of Gerald McCann coughing.  I have hay-fever, ironically since I stopped smoking, currently due to climatic conditions it's particularly bad causing me to frequently cough, gasp, clear my throat - it doesn't mean I'm lying or trying to conceal anything - honest!

The best place to initiate case new-comers or infidels is of course the PJ files.  Following that CMoMM is an excellent source of research and analysis plus Richard D Hall's formidable videos (other than Embedded Confession) plus PeterMac's free e-book!

Having said that, if people don't want to listen they won't no matter what's presented before them.  There are still hundreds and thousands who will listen!

All this bollox is totally not unexpected.
They have to spout such claptrap in order for them to remain believable to their few remaining fans.

As for threats to go to the ECHR, it will be laughed out of court since it does not get involved in civil suits which is what their case against Dr. Amaral was.

Verdi wrote:sc

tara wrote:I asked her whether she had yet looked at Peter Hyatt's embedded confessions or Amaral's book, which I had suggested she start with. She had not and had no intention

*******snipped******


Moving on to Peter Hyatt and his embedded confession, it's important to recognize the fact that statement analysis is not  definitive evidence of a crime - it is but a tool to assist crime investigation, that's where it begins and ends.  It could be spot on it could be way out - analysis of McCann type behaviour is way down on the list of priorities, as fascinating as it might be to some.  Same with body language, could mean something might mean nothing.  I notice today mention has been made of Gerald McCann coughing.  I have hay-fever, ironically since I stopped smoking, currently due to climatic conditions it's particularly bad causing me to frequently cough, gasp, clear my throat - it doesn't mean I'm lying or trying to conceal anything - honest!

The best place to initiate case new-comers or infidels is of course the PJ files.  Following that CMoMM is an excellent source of research and analysis plus Richard D Hall's formidable videos (other than Embedded Confession) plus PeterMac's free e-book!

Having said that, if people don't want to listen they won't no matter what's presented before them.  There are still hundreds and thousands who will listen!

I know statement analysis and body language analysis can be subjective but the coughing example you give, I think you are referring to the new interview they've given.

   The coughing is quite clearly a nervous cough, an affectation and not hay fever because it is accompanied by a faltering voice and what looks like a very emotional response when talking about a particular subject.....which is my opinion, of course. He doesn't do it again through the whole interview, he doesn't seem to be ill at all.

This is at the time that Gerry McCann has to correct himself and replaces a word with a cough when talking about what happened to his daughter.

I'm no expert on this stuff and I wasn't at all convinced by any of it until I watched the Peter Hyatt video - I think human behavior and language can tell us something.  After all, when we first meet someone or are confronted with some kind or dilemma or decision that hangs on somebodies testimony how do we decide? We have learned to assess how someone acts through body language and speech to try and gauge their honesty.  I think most people would be able to judge the difference between a nervous cough and someone who had allergies in a conversation.

  Yes it's not evidence of a crime but I think it could be useful for the police for uncovering areas of investigation.

What a good post ChippyM, exactly what I think.

These top tips from a Canadian lawyer bear out how we  assess people via our senses as they give testimony. This practice can only have evolved in human behaviour if it was at all useful.And  I liken it to good medical practice where a doctor looks at the patient holistically. Following the introduction I have left out the first three which involve personal hygiene, attire and overall appearance..
..................
Ten Tips on How to Make a Good Impression in Court

We know that first impressions last and influence our behaviour. We should not go out of our way to try to impress someone, but we should be aware that our demeanour will be noticed. When it comes to courtroom demeanour, a first good impression will imprint an image of you in the mind of the judge (or jurors) and may have an influence on the outcome of your case. In theory, judges and jurors are supposed to be unbiased and neutral, but in reality they are influenced by external stimuli, just like you and I. They are not only influenced by what they hear; your overall appearance, body language, the tone of voice and the way you go about asking and answering questions will have an impact on your case.


The tone of your voice.
4. Cultivate an elastic voice. When you get up in the morning getting ready for court, practice singing the following: ding, dong, bing, bong, king, kong, alternating between low and high tones. Try it…diiiinggg, dooongg, bingiiiing, boooong, kiiiingggg,kooongg, loud, louder and then deep and slow. Your voice will become elastic and when you speak in court, everyone will hear you. When speaking to the judge or the witnesses, modify the pitch of your voice to suit the distance between you and the listener. If you have to "speak up" then do speak up. Too often, soft voices are associated with nervousness and shyness, and the judges are sensitive to that and they will try to make you feel comfortable. For impact, however, vary the tone of your voice as you emphasize parts of your testimony.

Your body language
5. Avoid moving around too much. We know that communication is mostly body language and the tone of our voice. Try not to imitate courtroom drama you saw on television. To be dramatic actors and actresses move around a lot and point their fingers at the opposing counsel or witnesses. Avoid these tactics; they do not work in the real courtroom environment. Try if at all possible to stay put in one place while speaking and move only when you have to show a document to a witness or pick up an exhibit from the clerk.

6. Move your hands gracefully. It is always a good idea to move your hands. Scientific research shows that more nerve connections exist between the hands and the brain than between any other parts of the body. Unconsciously, therefore, your hands reveal your attitude towards another person, place, or situation. By the way you position your hands, rub your palms, and fiddle your fingers you’re telling anyone who’s paying attention what you are really feeling. To show honesty, keep your palms facing up. When people hold their hands in a front facing open position the words that would match this position would be along the lines of, “Honestly, you can absolutely trust that I’m telling you the truth.”

7. Facial expressions. Smiling helps, but not all the times. People with a perpetually sunny expression can be mistaken as frivolous or less serious. I tell my clients to avoid smiling too often, for it conveys a message of lack of understanding of the gravity of the situation. Your reputation, money and liberty are at stake. Therefore, be composed and look serious, but not too grave. When you hear something that you don’t like or which is totally false, remain composed. Avoid making facial expressions of disbelief by shaking your head. And look at the judge when you speak, establishing a good eye contact.
When being questioned

8. Avoid being argumentative. During the course of my career, I questioned many witnesses, both in the courtroom arena and in special examiners' offices. Whatever you say becomes part of the record, and the judges will hear it or have it read to them. If you are too argumentative with the person who examines you-usually a lawyer-your testimony will be lost in the clouds of these arguments and will have an adverse effect on your case. The worst thing to do is to argue with the judge. Just listen and answer the question asked of you. You do not have to agree if something suggested to you is not true. Just say, “With respect, I do not agree with that statement” or “This is not what happened, your Honour”. And then you explain.

9. Admit the obvious. If the questioner, asks you something that is obviously correct, just admit it and move on. If you are perennially disagreeable, all of the sudden the cards will start falling and your case will be lost.

10.  Answer truthfully to the best of your recollection. If you tell lies, sooner or later you will be caught because judges and lawyers are sophisticated enough to test the accuracy of your statements by means of other witnesses and evidence, including expert evidence. Tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

------------
As Verdi pointed out, sometimes a cough is just a cough. And as Chippy pointed out, there are also nervous coughs. It is all about context.The one cough that occurred was at a sensitive moment and was accompanied by other signals of discomfort such as change in voice tone. The overall effect was of momentary stalling. That is all about signals human beings send that, when taken together with many other  factors, help an audience to assess veracity.

Jta. I bolded the bit about not moving about too much and it would seem Gerry has tried to bring that aspect of body language under control. Likewise, if I'm not mistaken, Kate was not holding his thigh.

Hobs wrote:
As for threats to go to the ECHR, it will be laughed out of court since it does not get involved in civil suits which is what their case against Dr. Amaral was.

Laughed out of court - it wouldn't get inside the court !

Mirage wrote:These top tips from a Canadian lawyer bear out how we  assess people via our senses as they give testimony. This practice can only have evolved in human behaviour if it was at all useful.And  I liken it to good medical practice where a doctor looks at the patient holistically. Following the introduction I have left out the first three which involve personal hygiene, attire and overall appearance..
..................
Ten Tips on How to Make a Good Impression in Court

Professionally no doubt excellent advice but in reality it's a big ask of any poor mortal.

I can speak from experience, when plonked in a witness box with an audience before you, the bloke with the ill-fitting wig, twenty four watchful critical eyes and a room cram packed with eager ears and eyes - it's a mamoth task to even feign reality let alone follow a pre-requisite list of dos and don'ts!

It's a 100% necessity to keep your wits about you to avoid being tripped-up by the experience lawyer before you.  They twist your words, put words into your mouth, manipulate your answers - what chance there to think about your general comportment.

liars a to e wrote:I think this is press revenge. 10 years ago the press were called to - for them - a humdinger of a story. When reports from Portugal were exposing lies and inconsistencies they reported it. Then they got sued. Waiting to get their own back being ever so careful not to get sued again - the Supreme Court hearing has allowed them to print negative stuff dressed up with outrage of course - and this daily diet of tosh makes it so ever so more obvious that it is tosh so the true story becomes ever so more obvious. Don't mess with the press - the McCann's are no longer controlling this they are getting payback for those payouts. The papers are never going to let this drop until the truth comes out on and on it will go until someone cracks. It is an alternative view I know but one day a drink driver the next a woman the next a gang the next etc etc - the reader thinks Ok it is not these things is it - so what is it? Bingo ! Pennies drop everywhere. So print the 48 questions dressed up as outrage but those 48 questions still remain unanswered.

I agree that this is a very real possibility.

I was really annoyed that the press said that the McCanns had been hounded by Amaral's questioning but your view has made sense of it to me.

It's really good when someone stands back & brings a new perspective.

Well done you & you got a thumbs up from me.

New here, sorry for the improv introduction but I would have to agree with the poster saying this is now the press getting there revenge.

I have seen nothing but Maddie headlines for the last week - now all these 8/10 page spreads are getting attention... possibly for all the wrong reasons. I mean they've went from a guy wearing chinos and dark coat to a guy wearing beige trousers - now this WOMAN in a purple smock?

If it wasn't for Maddie actually being gone, I seriously would think the press are having a laugh at the McCann's expense. Who in their right mind could read such hogwash and swallow it as gospel? Ridiculous!!

Just an fyi here, when the case broke back in 07 I worked with mainly an older clientele and these women were 110% convinced that Mr Smugness personifid had an involvement in the "abduction". I didn't have any real opinion of the case back then, looking into the Richard Hall/Bogart and Amaral documentaries - you'd have to be blind not to see the pattern! They were the ones who wanted the media attention... well just look at where it's got them!

And they even wheeled out Fiona Bruce, probably the nicest most kindest & moat soft spoken Journalist... well ever! to do their 'anniversary interview' - really does say a lot about how much they want to shame these people... liars are always caught out!

plebgate wrote:What a good post ChippyM, exactly what I think.

Oh, Thanks Plebgate, that's kind of you to say!

I noticed that the papers have put a 'nicer spin' on phrases when quoting the McCanns from this latest interview. That headline above says Kate is keeping presents for 'when she comes home'....what Kate actually said was 'whenever we find her'.

That phrase was accompanied by her rolling her eyes and making the sort of look people do when they do that annoying air quotation thing...you know as in when someone says sarcastically  "like that's ever going to happen", or they obviously don't believe you and repeat a phrase back sarcastically.

   To me it seemed like she'd held it together for most of the interview and then her attempt at acting like a worried parent just slipped.   It just seemed to be the wrong moment to make light of something.