Re: Gerry McCann's 'weak denial' in new footage has some hallmarks of deception, expert claims

by tara 31.05.17 8:38

Surely the McCanns would be suing Rhani Sadler for editing their responses and using them out of context.

by Guest 31.05.17 8:41

tara wrote:Surely the McCanns would be suing Rhani Sadler for editing their responses and using them out of context.

Which is why I think it was an approved production.

They wouldn't dare take such liberties unless it was approved.

by Phoebe 31.05.17 10:51

BlueBag wrote:
tara wrote:Surely the McCanns would be suing Rhani Sadler for editing their responses and using them out of context.
Which is why I think it was an approved production.

They wouldn't dare take such liberties unless it was approved.

I believe the original program (short "No that's an emphatic no") was certainly approved by team McC. Why wouldn't it be when one considers that this same program alleges that the police didn't arrive for over an hour after they were alerted, didn't close the borders and bungled the preservation of the crime scene?. The 10th anniversary version with the "longer answer"has just been aired and at this juncture the McCanns have no stomach to sue anyone. They may also, after paying the costs of their court battle with Dr. Amaral and possibly costs should he decide to counter-sue, be financially strapped. In any case, I doubt they'd sue over the new show. To do so would be to highlight that it made Gerry look flustered. Much better to let that lie than unnecessarily highlight it.

by Irene 2 31.05.17 11:05

BlueBag wrote:If this was the answer (one continuous clip)... what was the question?

Gerry: I mean the ludicrous thing is erm... what.. what I suppose has been purported from Portugal is Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body... well when did she have an accident and died.. coz... the only time she was left unattended was when we were at dinner, so if she died then how could we have disposed of.. hidden her body... you know when there was an immediate se (unsure,, search?)... it's just nonsense so and if she died when we were in the apartment or fell and died.... why would we cover that up?

Kate: That get's even more ludicrous that we've obviously hidden her some incredibly well where nobody's found her and we hid her so well that we then decide that we'd move her in the car which we hired weeks later and you know it's just ridiculous.

I suppose it could have been "did Madeleine have an accident and you hid her body?"... but then that's what Gerry says as a slight deflection (imo) is "purported by Portugal" so that was not the question.

"Did Madeleine die from an accident?" would fit.

Anyway... I still think this was a McCann team approved production... some nice casual soft focus shots of the three of them (McCanns and interviewer) walking down the road follow this clip... There are also plenty of jabs at the PJ in it.

I still believe the two are before and after his emphatic no. TM would have demanded the preamble was edited out because of his body language etc. At 10.35 he says in answer to the question edited in at that point "no, that's an emphatic no"

After his preamble in the new clip he ends with "SO, no, that's an emphatic no"
They removed the "so" and edited in the question at that point in the original version. He is opening his eyes in both at the point of him saying the first "no". His half smirk is exactly the same too. What else could she have asked to warrant his rambling reply in the new clip which he obviously rambles on again to try to justify after the emphatic no in the original version.
I hope this makes sense!

by **HiDeHo** 31.05.17 13:48

I put together an edited/stitched version of the two videos. Not sure if it is helpful or not....

https://www.facebook.com/groups/HiDeHoLinks/permalink/1346214195461392/

by Irene 2 31.05.17 15:53

HiDeHo wrote:I put together an edited/stitched version of the two videos. Not sure if it is helpful or not....

https://www.facebook.com/groups/HiDeHoLinks/permalink/1346214195461392/

Excellent, thank you Lizzy. It flows perfectly. Peter Hyatt instructs his students to count on their fingers how many words are used after a yes or no question and he only saw the second part of this particular haughty tirade against the PJ.

10.21

by Guest 31.05.17 16:22

Irene 2 wrote:

Excellent, thank you Lizzy. It flows perfectly.

I disagree.

After "no, emphatic no" the camera (the same camera) is suddenly/instantly on Kate and panning back to Gerry.

There is no continuity there.

Who knows what questions they were answering.

by Guest 31.05.17 16:41

BlueBag wrote:
I suppose it could have been "did Madeleine have an accident and you hid her body?"

Or it could be something like 'did you give Madeleine a sedative to help her sleep' or 'have you ever been violent towards your children' or have you ever considered giving Madeleine up for adoption' - the list is endless, each and every one could prompt a no or even an emphatic no, hence my doubt.

Still, it doesn't detract from my initial point, that the video in whatever form would be useless in terms of 'statement analysis', as clearly it's been edited.

I'm still curious to know why they are wearing exactly the same clothing as they appear in the Irish interview during the same month. I know they've got some front but would they really have the audacity to promote madeleine by Kate McCann in Portugal? The tail end of the video suggests Rahni Sadler was amonsgt ther journalists during a book promo.

I truly believe the whole interview is sham. I guess some Australian sensational show doesn't really have any significance in the grand scheme of things.

Bigger fish to fry!

by Phoebe 31.05.17 19:33

@ Verdi. Which Irish interview do you mean? I can only find The Late Late Show one?

by Guest 31.05.17 22:21

Phoebe wrote:@ Verdi. Which Irish interview do you mean? I can only find The Late Late Show one?

Part 1..

Part 2..

by Phoebe 31.05.17 23:30

@ Verdi. Many thanks for putting those up. thumbsup

I'd never seen the full interview and only recalled I'd seen that little clip of Kate "crying" when I saw Mark Cagney. Oh pass me a sick-bucket!! Such fawning sycophancy! The way he "disses" the Portuguese police is disgusting, yet no word about abandoning the kids. " You'd do anything for your kids" (except pay a babysitter if we are to believe you). You're right about the same clothes! They must have been told that these outfits project the right image - flowery, feminine dress for Kate and smart/casual look for Gerry. It didn't take them long to learn how to plug their book, "reluctant"my foot! Millions spent on crooked "detectives". Disgraceful!!!

by Irene 2 02.06.17 10:42

Verdi wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
I suppose it could have been "did Madeleine have an accident and you hid her body?"
Or it could be something like 'did you give Madeleine a sedative to help her sleep' or 'have you ever been violent towards your children' or have you ever considered giving Madeleine up for adoption' - the list is endless, each and every one could prompt a no or even an emphatic no, hence my doubt.

Still, it doesn't detract from my initial point, that the video in whatever form would be useless in terms of 'statement analysis', as clearly it's been edited.

I'm still curious to know why they are wearing exactly the same clothing as they appear in the Irish interview during the same month. I know they've got some front but would they really have the audacity to promote madeleine by Kate McCann in Portugal? The tail end of the video suggests Rahni Sadler was amonsgt ther journalists during a book promo.

I truly believe the whole interview is sham. I guess some Australian sensational show doesn't really have any significance in the grand scheme of things.

Bigger fish to fry!

Peter Hyatt analysed the McCann approved and probably what they thought was less incriminating, partial answer, in the original broadcast.

by Irene 2 02.06.17 12:36

Phoebe wrote:@ Verdi. Many thanks for putting those up. I'd never seen the full interview and only recalled I'd seen that little clip of Kate "crying" when I saw Mark Cagney. Oh pass me a sick-bucket!! Such fawning sycophancy! The way he "disses" the Portuguese police is disgusting, yet no word about abandoning the kids. " You'd do anything for your kids" (except pay a babysitter if we are to believe you). You're right about the same clothes! They must have been told that these outfits project the right image - flowery, feminine dress for Kate and smart/casual look for Gerry. It didn't take them long to learn how to plug their book, "reluctant"my foot! Millions spent on crooked "detectives". Disgraceful!!!

The hallmark of self interest or being successfully McCanned during their years of silencing and not availing himself of any other knowledge of the case? I couldn't bear to watch all of it.
6 years and 12 million pounds of taxpayers money wasted and what has OG's remit produced? Nothing! While the McCanns languish in what appears to be guaranteed safety.

1.45 AC Mark Rowley, "In terms of Andy using the word abduction, she wasn't old enough to make a decision to set off and start her own life. However she left that apartment she's been abducted"
I refuse to accept that someone in his position believes this gibberish! This is sinking to a whole new level. Was it some kind of desperate message to the public? Is he someone else who might only dare reveal truth when he's safely retired?

Make that two sick buckets please! Plus a medal for anyone who can bear hogwash from frightened police officers or watching this repellent attention seeking couple thoroughly enjoying controlling centre stage and playing up to the self interested or half-wit sycophants.

by willowthewisp 02.06.17 13:03

Isn't that video of such"cringe Worthiness" try to find an "Answer for Kate and Gerry"mentioned at least Three" Times,just how does this Assistant Commander of the Metropolitan Police Force,fails to mention the Crime dogs Eddie,Keela and the LCN/DNA samples,so openly disregarded,"that was back in Portugal 2007,this is now 2017,so that evidence is irrelevant"?
They(UK Police) are supposed to be looking for an"Alive"Madeleine,so that's why they spent hours using"Break Through Technical Sonar"in Portugal for a live person,sniffer Dogs?

Latest topics