"KILLER LOOK" - New YouTube video from HideHo - RARE FOOTAGE FROM AMSTERDAM, Media Interview 7 June 2007, the McCanns and Clarence Mitchell on stage

by **Tony Bennett** 10.07.15 22:57

A close up of the McCanns performing at a Press Conference in Amsterdam, 7 June 2007, five weeks to the day after they reported Madeleine missing:

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

After about 2 mins 30 secs, a journalist, rather clumsily, asks the McCanns why they seem to be so in control of their emotions.

HideHo draws attention to what she says is in effect a 'slip of the mask', when for a couple of seconds at 3 mins 07 secs to 3 mins 09 secs, Kate appears to show a real flash of anger at the journalist who asked this embarrassing question.

HideHo has managed to enlarge those same images right at the end of the vid (5 mins 05 secs to 5 mins 07 secs).

The whole event is I think revealing and repays close study.

Well done once again HideHo for getting this and sharing it.

It was released on Monday (6 July).

It has swiftly produced this reaction from one YouTube viewer:

QUOTE

I have followed this case very closely throughout this awful time for both parents and family... What you are all forgetting is that they are both qualified medical Doctors, who are trained to withhold emotions!... For heavens sake, there is not one shred of evidence pointing to the parents! What you also need to remember is that the Portuguese authorities screwed up big time... I hope they will get closure some day in the not too distant future

by whatsupdoc 11.07.15 0:54

Well done to Lizzy for spotting this brief slip of KM. Most people would have missed it unless they were sitting at the right angle and not blinking. I don't think we have seen that response from KM before, a very frightening stare.

by Doubter 11.07.15 8:49

At 4.47 -

'We want to cover all places she could have been moved to ' - curious as well .

by Guest 11.07.15 8:58

Gerry's reaction at 3.50 to the question "is the main focus on Morocco, is that your hope?"

Strange, and I think there is a smirk in there.

by **tigger** 11.07.15 10:24

One comment on YouTube: Most likely place she could have been moved to?! Not taken to?! You move a dead body you take a living person.

Both in Germany and in Amsterdam they were asked a few questions they did not like. Interviews were rehearsed afaik as I recall Kate complaining somewhere, either in the book or in the diary, that the rehearsals would sometimes take up to three hours. Perhaps this one wasn't which explains Gerry's confab with Clarrie behind the safety of those held-up pyjamas. Quite ridiculous.

Two questions they did not like, (no emotions and why Morocco) but otherwise it was more like a mini lecture, those ridiculously large pyjamas for Amelie too. Plus that allegedly Maddie's were long-sleeved makes exhibiting these pointless - apart from the fact that she'd be very unlikely to still be wearing them.
Now Kate told a journalist after they were moved to a new apartment that she laid out Maddie's pyjamas on a bed every night. A clean pair obviously. Then there were the pyjamas she was wearing when abducted. But also another pair, a dirty, unwashed pair, which was thrown into the back of the Scenic together with her sandals when they moved to the villa early July. This last was to explain the DNA in the car.
So three pairs of pyjamas for a week and yet Kate took the trouble to wash the pair Maddie was wearing on the Wednesday night on Thursday morning because there was an inexplicable stain on them. But she had at least two pairs in reserve.....

Kate was taking a very good look at the journalist asking the emotion question and jumped in with the Morocco answer.

This video is from the 7th, on the 9th there was a family reunion in Sagres which Gerry fudges in his blog, on the 10th they fly to Morocco.

by jeanmonroe 11.07.15 14:14

by sammi1967 11.07.15 14:44

IMO the narrowing of the eyes and the slight shaking of the head looks like communication between KM and someone....most likely the journalist asking the question as they do seem to be stumbling over the question....to me it is a 'that is not what you were meant to say or ask' type of look. As though the person asking it got the script wrong maybe and put them in a difficult position to answer. As for the whispering behind the pyjamas who knows. As with everything in this case all very strange unnatural and suspicious.

by **Tony Bennett** 11.07.15 14:56

sammi1967 wrote:IMO the narrowing of the eyes and the slight shaking of the head looks like communication between KM and someone....most likely the journalist asking the question as they do seem to be stumbling over the question....to me it is a 'that is not what you were meant to say or ask' type of look. As though the person asking it got the script wrong maybe and put them in a difficult position to answer. As for the whispering behind the pyjamas who knows. As with everything in this case all very strange unnatural and suspicious.

Is there a lip-reader in the house?

And does anyone know exactly where those pyjamas came from?

Amelie's pyjamas? A bit big for someone only just turned two, aren't they?

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

by Guest 11.07.15 15:00

sammi1967 wrote:IMO the narrowing of the eyes and the slight shaking of the head looks like communication between KM and someone....

I agree it's a communication.

I think she's saying "no" to someone.

by lj 11.07.15 17:11

Tony Bennett wrote:A close up of the McCanns performing at a Press Conference in Amsterdam, 7 June 2007, five weeks to the day after they reported Madeleine missing:

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

After about 2 mins 30 secs, a journalist, rather clumsily, asks the McCanns why they seem to be so in control of their emotions.

HideHo draws attention to what she says is in effect a 'slip of the mask', when for a couple of seconds at 3 mins 07 secs to 3 mins 09 secs, Kate appears to show a real flash of anger at the journalist who asked this embarrassing question.

HideHo has managed to enlarge those same images right at the end of the vid (5 mins 05 secs to 5 mins 07 secs).

The whole event is I think revealing and repays close study.

Well done once again HideHo for getting this and sharing it.

It was released on Monday (6 July).

It has swiftly produced this reaction from one YouTube viewer:

QUOTE

I have followed this case very closely throughout this awful time for both parents and family... What you are all forgetting is that they are both qualified medical Doctors, who are trained to withhold emotions!... For heavens sake, there is not one shred of evidence pointing to the parents! What you also need to remember is that the Portuguese authorities screwed up big time... I hope they will get closure some day in the not too distant future

Funny that comment on a video where they could not suppress their emotions!

by canada12 11.07.15 17:50

Tony Bennett wrote:
sammi1967 wrote:IMO the narrowing of the eyes and the slight shaking of the head looks like communication between KM and someone....most likely the journalist asking the question as they do seem to be stumbling over the question....to me it is a 'that is not what you were meant to say or ask' type of look. As though the person asking it got the script wrong maybe and put them in a difficult position to answer. As for the whispering behind the pyjamas who knows. As with everything in this case all very strange unnatural and suspicious.
Is there a lip-reader in the house?

And does anyone know exactly where those pyjamas came from?

Amelie's pyjamas? A bit big for someone only just turned two, aren't they?

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

I remember reading fairly early on that the pyjamas were helpfully supplied by Marks and Spencer, or wherever the pyjamas had originally been bought from for Madeleine. So they weren't actually the pj's that Madeleine ever wore... they were what Kate and Gerry told M&S were the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing, and so M&S-- or whichever shop it was -- supplied a new pair of pj's that could be displayed.

by The Rooster 11.07.15 18:10

Classic. Nasty piece of work that one. I wonder if they ever visit this site, if so the husband will need to refute the meaning of the footage, just like the time outside the courthouse when he said "Kate never had a dream." Oh to be a fly on the wall when that one landed on him from above.

by **Tony Bennett** 11.07.15 18:28

canada12 wrote:
I remember reading fairly early on that the pyjamas were helpfully supplied by Marks and Spencer, or wherever the pyjamas had originally been bought from for Madeleine. So they weren't actually the pj's that Madeleine ever wore... they were what Kate and Gerry told M&S were the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing, and so M&S-- or whichever shop it was -- supplied a new pair of pj's that could be displayed.

Thank you @ canada12 - I understand the point you are making, and, yes, Marks & Spencers did apparently supply an identical pair of pyjamas so that he McCanns or the police coiuld display then on TV etc...

...BUT - I don't think I'm mistaken here, when the pyjamas are held up here, does not Kate McCann say:

"These are Amelie's pyjamas, Madeleine's were a little bit bigger"?

I will wait until this point is clarified before moving on the discussion about the pyjamas, maybe to a more appropriate thread in the debate and research sections, or maybe to a new thread altogether.

'tigger' brought up the 'Great Pyjama Mystery' back up the thread, when she pointed out:

QUOTE

"Now Kate told a journalist after they were moved to a new apartment that she laid out Maddie's pyjamas on a bed every night. A clean pair obviously. Then there were the pyjamas she was wearing when abducted. But also another pair, a dirty, unwashed pair, which was thrown into the back of the Scenic together with her sandals when they moved to the villa early July. This last was to explain the DNA in the car.

So three pairs of pyjamas for a week and yet Kate took the trouble to wash the pair Maddie was wearing on the Wednesday night on Thursday morning because there was an inexplicable stain on them. But she had at least two pairs in reserve..."

UNQUOTE

And then there was Amelie, who (according to John McCann) saw Madeleine's pyjamas being held up and exclaimed 'Maddie's Jammies'.

'Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings and all that'.

I can't help feeling there is a deep mystery somewhere about all these pyjamas.

And I haven't even mentioned, yet, the 'tea stain' and Madeleine's pyjamas being washed hours before she was reported missing...

by The Rooster 11.07.15 21:19

You are of course right... It's all back peddling and retro fitting on the McCanns part, has been since the beginning. It's as obvious as the nose on ones face. Why can't the police see that, or do they? Who knows. Very quiet Ms Wall!!!

by **PeterMac** 11.07.15 21:48

The Rooster wrote: Very quiet Ms Wall!!!

QUITE SO

by **Tony Bennett** 11.07.15 22:31

BlueBag wrote:
sammi1967 wrote:IMO the narrowing of the eyes and the slight shaking of the head looks like communication between KM and someone....
I agree it's a communication.

I think she's saying "no" to someone.

I think it is far more 'aggressive' than just a communication and 'saying no' to someone @ BlueBag

Look again very carefully at 3 mins 08 secs or again at the enlarged version at the end at 5 mins 10 secs.

You will see a very distinct, reflex, narrowing of the eyes at this point, the bottom eyelid jumps perceptibly upwards.

In addition, there is a perceptible slight shake of the head at the same time, as if to say' NO, you shouldn't have asked that awkward question'.
Moreover, at 2 mins 54 secs you can see a visual, but not audible, grimace of exasperation with the questioner. This exasperation IMO boils over into the 'kiiller look' 11 seconds later at 3 mins 05 secs.

My interpretation is that this is a flash of real anger and hatred - like suppressed anger coming to the boil - towards the journalist who was justifiably, if somewhat clumsily, challenging the obvious - how the McCanns could be so controlled and emotionless (he fumbled and used the word 'relaxed') when their precious daughter and first child might be dead or being abused by paedophiles

If looks could kill...

by noddy100 11.07.15 23:07

Truly dreadful people and some cover up going on when they behave like that and no one hauls them in! Moved her? What a strange turn of phrase for describing an abduction

by Guest 11.07.15 23:22

Tony Bennett wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
sammi1967 wrote:IMO the narrowing of the eyes and the slight shaking of the head looks like communication between KM and someone....
I agree it's a communication.

I think she's saying "no" to someone.
I think it is far more 'aggressive' than just a communication and 'saying no' to someone @ BlueBag

Look again very carefully at 3 mins 08 secs or again at the enlarged version at the end at 5 mins 10 secs.

You will see a very distinct, reflex, narrowing of the eyes at this point, the bottom eyelid jumps perceptibly upwards.

In addition, there is a perceptible slight shake of the head at the same time, as if to say' NO, you shouldn't have asked that awkward question'.
Moreover, at 2 mins 54 secs you can see a visual, but not audible, grimace of exasperation with the questioner. This exasperation IMO boils over into the 'kiiller look' 11 seconds later at 3 mins 05 secs.

My interpretation is that this is a flash of real anger and hatred - like suppressed anger coming to the boil - towards the journalist who was justifiably, if somewhat clumsily, challenging the obvious - how the McCanns could be so controlled and emotionless (he fumbled and used the word 'relaxed') when their precious daughter and first child might be dead or being abused by paedophiles

If looks could kill...

I'm inclined to agree with you Tony. Apart from anything else, confronted by a room full of journalists, who could she possibly be communicating with? To my mind her look is that of an exasperated 'how dare you ask such a question' (probably mouthing something to the effect of f***** t*****?).

An interesting interview as IMO for once it doesn't appear to be rehearsed. Gerry McCann is clearly speechless when asked about the Moroccan connection and unusually Kate McCann instantly takes control (only other occasion I recall is when she tried to cover for his studio tantrum), most unlike Gerry to allow his wife to lead or have too much to say during an interview. Indeed, he seems to me to be most uncomfortable during the whole affair - not a bit like his normal self-assured vocal persona whereas Kate appears well groomed and totally in control - for once!

As an aside, perhaps this video should have been presented before the Lisbon courts. So soon after their daughter disappears they don't look in the least perturbed by the 'situation they find themselves in' or in any other way traumatized. If their daughters disappearance caused so little distress how can it be believed that Dr Amaral's book harmed them in any way?

by worriedmum 11.07.15 23:44

What struck me was how similar Kate McCann's expressions about how they 'got through it' were to the ones in Jon Corner's video in August 2007.

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

by Guest 12.07.15 0:12

Gerry McCann (excuse errors due to background noise)

...it just happens to be that Kate and I are en-route and we have chosen actually chosen countries probably a priority so that we thought was - erm you know erm - we don't know where she is and we want to cover the most likely places she could have been moved to... *gulps and nervously licks lips*

So they thought that Berlin, Amsterdam, Rome(The Vatican) and Rabat to be the most likely places 'she' could have been moved to? How on earth did they deduce such a crazy idea?

by whodunit 12.07.15 0:18

Fleeting facial expressions can be telling but mostly they are a subjective phenomenon and open to interpretation. If I were an innocent parent of a missing child I would probably be annoyed at the question. Such questions are not helpful and do not move the investigation forward. More pertinent questions would have been 'why did you leave your kids alone' and 'why can't you prove your child was present on the holiday past Sunday?'

by lj 12.07.15 0:44

Tony Bennett wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
sammi1967 wrote:IMO the narrowing of the eyes and the slight shaking of the head looks like communication between KM and someone....
I agree it's a communication.

I think she's saying "no" to someone.
I think it is far more 'aggressive' than just a communication and 'saying no' to someone @ BlueBag

Look again very carefully at 3 mins 08 secs or again at the enlarged version at the end at 5 mins 10 secs.

You will see a very distinct, reflex, narrowing of the eyes at this point, the bottom eyelid jumps perceptibly upwards.

In addition, there is a perceptible slight shake of the head at the same time, as if to say' NO, you shouldn't have asked that awkward question'.
Moreover, at 2 mins 54 secs you can see a visual, but not audible, grimace of exasperation with the questioner. This exasperation IMO boils over into the 'kiiller look' 11 seconds later at 3 mins 05 secs.

My interpretation is that this is a flash of real anger and hatred - like suppressed anger coming to the boil - towards the journalist who was justifiably, if somewhat clumsily, challenging the obvious - how the McCanns could be so controlled and emotionless (he fumbled and used the word 'relaxed') when their precious daughter and first child might be dead or being abused by paedophiles

If looks could kill...

I believe killing would be the intent, if possible. At the risk of being called sexist, I think this is a "girl" look, meaning something like "I'm going to get you" "you really píssed me off, you're next".
Oh yes, there is a load of hatred in that one.

As Rooster said: "nasty piece of work that one".

by Joss 12.07.15 5:55

It would be interesting to get Seamus O'Reilly body language analyst & Eyes For Lies take on this particular interview.

by nomendelta 12.07.15 8:57

The pro answer is that as doctors they would both have the ability to control their emotions. That is probably true to some extent but there's one emotion that they've exhibited from early on and there plenty of photographic evidence. Unfortunately for the McCanns is a most inappropriate emotion in the circumstances - sheer beaming happiness.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.07.15 9:53

nomendelta wrote:The pro answer is that as doctors they would both have the ability to control their emotions. That is probably true to some extent but there's one emotion that they've exhibited from early on and there plenty of photographic evidence. Unfortunately for the McCanns is a most inappropriate emotion in the circumstances - sheer beaming happiness.

That is a very good point.

But the public never see these images of 'sheer beaming happiness', of which there are many - only we on the internet are able to view them, and of course they inform our judgment here about the case.

The mainstream media never publish them - because the narrative is that the McCanns are distraught. So only sad, doleful, haunted pictures are published.

Once again, the mainstream TV-watching, mainstream newspaper-reading public are denied the facts

by joyce1938 12.07.15 11:23

sheer beaming face ,must signify a really good job had been done to cover up and make them feel totally secure,and said child could never be found ,and that is what has occurred so far , I just don't know how they could be that certain ,BUT NO ONE STILL CAN FIND HER whats the answer ? joyce1938.

by willowthewisp 12.07.15 12:02

Joyce
Only the Abductor knows what happened to Madeleine McCann?

by TheTruthWillOut 12.07.15 12:13

I honestly don't judge still images too severely. Video is very different though.

The problem is that still images are taken at 100s or 1000s of a second intervals and capture unflattering or horrible looking images between facial expressions.

Just look at Tony's avatar of DCI Wall. Very unflattering and makes her look like she hasn't put her teeth in! (Please don't hunt me down Miss Wall!)

by plebgate 13.07.15 9:32

TheTruthWillOut wrote:I honestly don't judge still images too severely. Video is very different though.

The problem is that still images are taken at 100s or 1000s of a second intervals and capture unflattering or horrible looking images between facial expressions.

Just look at Tony's avatar of DCI Wall. Very unflattering and makes her look like she hasn't put her teeth in! (Please don't hunt me down Miss Wall!)

Been enough grins and looks from the sofa IMO.

by **tigger** 13.07.15 13:26

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

from the Espresso Interview 2008

"KILLER LOOK" - New YouTube video from HideHo - RARE FOOTAGE FROM AMSTERDAM, Media Interview 7 June 2007, the McCanns and Clarence Mitchell on stage