McCanns in Australia

One of the first things Kate says in that video is:

"She was just really compact, really nice round, perfect head...you know, and then she opened her mouth and the whole world knew she was with us."

It reminds me of that phrase "Children should be seen but not heard".

So Maddie had a "compact, round, perfect head" aswell as perfect genitals (according to Kate in her book)...but she wasn't quite perfect because like any small child "that girl could throw a tantrum if she wanted to" (according to granny Eileen McCann) and Kate told the Daily Mail that she struggled to control "very difficult" Madeleine

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

And here Kate demonstrates to Oprah (and somebody else in a different interview) what she would have done when Maddie asked her why she didn't come when they were crying last night. Instead of consoling Maddie she demonstrates on two separate occasions that she would have taken hold of Maddie and shook her - in one interview she says "What do you mean? What do you mean you were crying?". Hardly an appropriate reaction to the distress of a 3 year old and her younger siblings.

Kate has also told us in her book that she was capable of breaking a divan and thumping walls. She must have quite a temper.

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

i have just watched the film.

A soft interview with commentary and film between the interview that ignores relevant facts.

I think the 'did you murder her' question was preagreed so that the programme would appear open. The McCanns and their handlers would not allow a question like that without agreement not to follow up. So they had a prepared answer, though they did seem a little shifty! Having this question in allowed the McCanns to use the word ludicrous as often as they liked.

A half decent interviewer would have raised the dogs, the impossible timeline and the lack of co-operation with the police, the unanswered 48 questions etc. But I don't think that was allowed. or it could have been inadequate research, which again is unacceptable.

Was amused when the commentary said they were 'using their own money' to search for Madeleine....

Also wished the Portuguese police would sue the McCanns for being portrayed as so incompetent - the commentary said they took nearly an hour to come, two hours to seal the room and they did not seal the borders. No mention of the highly relevant issue that it seemed a child had wandered out of the unlocked door looking for her parents...which does not necessitate sealing borders.

If I may, I'd like to wander off the original topic by mentioning an early report which clouded my judgement of the Portuguese police. I'm pretty sure it was on a BBC news bulletin and within the first two or three days after 3rd May. It showed a long line of vehicles being allowed to cross the border unchecked with police just standing around doing nothing. The commentator said something about there being no sense of urgency anywhere and, that when it had been raining earlier, the police retreated to their cars. I'm reminded of it by Pauline's comment that this would not have been a priority when the most obvious solution was that Madeleine had simply wandered off to look for her parents. However, the abduction theory had been shouted from the rooftops from the word go and so I had no reason to doubt the inference in the report that the police were useless. Oh to have known then what I know now!



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

The first thing that strikes me in this interview is how much more careful the McCanns are with their body language and facial expressions. They obviously have received some professional advice and coaching.



It really sickens me that they compare this case to that of Natascha Kampusch. Natascha's mother never refused to answer questions from the police. There were no traces of blood and cadaverine anywhere near her home, clothes or car. A witness saw her being bundled in a van. Natascha has been through a terrible ordeal and should not be exploited by the McCanns in this way [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Yes Zelina it drives me up the wall when the McCanns liken their situation to that of a genuine abduction case; clearly they want us to believe that they too are innocent victims (sadly there are some people who are still being fooled by them) and for that reason the search for their daughter must go on. As discussed on other topics they make a habit of gatecrashing unrelated charitable events - everything from missing persons to the victims of knife crimes - to make sure that the message gets through again that they also deserve our sympathy. Their past behaviour makes it very strange that, apart from this Australian programme - and I don't know when it was actually made - they are currently keeping a very low profile. I suppose there's a first time for everything though!



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

Compulsive liars, those McCanns.
ETA: of course, the Press like compulsive liars, because one day they will be found out, probably by their own mistake, and then just imagine the numbers of papers which will be sold!!!!
But then, they must keep on lying, because that is the course they have set out upon.

From KM's book "Kate admits no one came through the window of the children's bedroom. Yes, after years of insisting that someone broke into the apartment by tampering with the shutters and forcing the window open, Kate now backs down from that claim, agreeing with the Policia Judiciara that an abductor did not climbed into or out of the room"

The question is.....Why go on Australian TV 2 days ago (24th July 2011) saying the shutters were open and the so called abductor got in and out with Maddie?

An blatant lie to which nobody says anything about

Kate McCann is a blatant liar. As we can see:
How? Not thru forcing the shutters after all!
When? Not on 3 May at all, but five days earlier!
Why? Not because a swarthy abductor wanted her!
Where? Not in the child's bedroom at all, but probably in the dining-room where the sofa had been moved over the spot.
What? Death - the dogs tell us that. No wonder Gerry has to rubbish them!!! If the McCs were innocent, they'd say "well, we hate to think about it, but the evidence of the dogs provides a probable answer to Maddie's fate".
But, of course, the McCanns rubbish Madeleine's memory, too, by lying, lying, lying.
Let me get them into court, or on television if they prefer, and demonstrate that Gerry falsified the creche records, assisted by the passivity of Robert Naylor. And probably helped more substantively by Rxxxx.

i love your posts kiko

Well, I've been uncharacteristically angry with them today, ROSA. Normally I keep it under control! Perhaps it was Amazon withdrawing Pat Brown's book that did it. Mind you, Pat was very dismissive of my conclusion that Maddie had died on 28/9 April. Keep it simple, I think was her preference. She's entitled to her opinion, of course - and anyway, withdrawing a book is blatant censorship.

Thinking of Kate being a compulsive liar. I have just posted this on twitter.

Kate #McCann "We haven't put too much emphasis on her eye as you have to get close to her to see it"-"Marketing Ploy" GM [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Video is of her saying actually saying this to pervy Piers.

We no different though don't we.

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

It's not the first time the McCanns have done it kiko and unless someone gets their sorry arses into court then it won't be the last either. They are unstoppable and laughing all the way to the bank.

I'd just like to add to honeybunches post - that's Kate McCann holding the poster.

Baffling, isn't it? Why pretend that they didn't emphasise her eye?

Miraflores

I am sorry, I can't bring up the courage to watch the Australian video, I just can't.

But are they still on that "closing the borders"??

Do they have any idea how stupid that makes them look? Opening the shutters and windows, closing the borders, after 4 years they still have no idea what are possibilities or not.

Portugal has been a member of the Schengen area since 1995. A Schengen state may reinstate border controls if deemed in the national interest BUT has to follow a consultation procedure before such an action.

Just who the h**l do they think that they are that they can throw out European law to suit their own purposes?



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

Miraflores wrote:I'd just like to add to honeybunches post - that's Kate McCann holding the poster.
Baffling, isn't it? Why pretend that they didn't emphasise her eye?

Indeed.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
No emphasis at all.

Invinoveritas wrote:Portugal has been a member of the Schengen area since 1995. A Schengen state may reinstate border controls if deemed in the national interest BUT has to follow a consultation procedure before such an action.

And that was a sop to Belgium and France and Holland so that they could tell their people that they could shut the borders if Germany ever tried to invade again.

Absolutely NOTHING to do with missing or deceased children.
But the Australians may not understand, and if their journalists do not point out it would be like trying to shut the border between Western Australia and Northern Territory, they are unlikely to get it.

Yes Petermac,

that is exactly the point I was trying to get accross and I thought it might help our cousins south of the Equator to have this information so that they can see how they are being wilfully mislead through missing information.

P.S. did you know that Tony Blair is on a speech tour of Australia at the moment, now that is a coincidence [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I doubt they say it because they think they can get away with it in Australia. I believe they are just that hardcore stupid.
It's the same level of stupidity as 2 doctors saying a fleck is just a coloboma, or the other way around.

Invinoveritas wrote:
P.S. did you know that Tony Blair is on a speech tour of Australia at the moment, now that is a coincidence

Everyone in Australia, - collecting money.

Has it been established that the McCanns actually are in Australia? The programme there said that they were touring in Europe but there's been no other reports of them being in either place.

If its true that they are in Australia and supposed to be touring Europe, is GM still working or is the Find Madeleine Fund now funding their lifestyle?

Ollie wrote:If its true that they are in Australia and supposed to be touring Europe, is GM still working or is the Find Madeleine Fund now funding their lifestyle?

he could be taking his annual holidays to spread the gospel to the Aussies.

Are the twins with them, or left at home. But maybe nice uncle Brian and Auntie Janet are looking after them.

but we can be sure that the Fund is paying lots of dosh for this jaunt.

Does anyone know the reaction of the Aussie media to their visit. they must have been there long enough to do the interview in which they were asked if they killed Madeleine. Unless that Australian interviewer flew to them with her camera crew.

Ollie wrote:If its true that they are in Australia and supposed to be touring Europe, is GM still working or is the Find Madeleine Fund now funding their lifestyle?

Maybe the person who keeps on insisting borders within the Schengen Europe can be closed, thinks that Australia is in Europe, or the other way around??

ETA some words.......

Marian,

I´ve checked the tabloids in German speaking countries and they are not reporting a tour of the Mccanns to Europe

I don't think the Australian programme was ever done in Australia. The woman reporter/interviewer went to Portugal and the interview was done there and they edited it at Channel 7 back home

It looks a PR exercise to raise as much for the fund and all the questions were very carefully scripted...and everything in that programme has been asked/said already before from interviews here in the UK...not to mention the shutters lie resurfacing again!

I never saw any shots of Australia on the programme so wherever the McScams are, it isn't Australia...the are probably camped out on the sofa in their lawyers office trolling the internet for anyone or anything they can sue and close down, leaving no stone unturned...all under the guise 'in their search for Madeline'

jd wrote:I don't think the Australian programme was ever done in Australia. The woman reporter/interviewer went to Portugal and the interview was done there and they edited it at Channel 7 back home

It looks a PR exercise to raise as much for the fund and all the questions were very carefully scripted...and everything in that programme has been asked/said already before from interviews here in the UK...not to mention the shutters lie resurfacing again!

I never saw any shots of Australia on the programme so wherever the McScams are, it isn't Australia...the are probably camped out on the sofa in their lawyers office trolling the internet for anyone or anything they can sue and close down, leaving no stone unturned...all under the guise 'in their search for Madeline'

I am Australian and I agree with you. I would love to be able to contact that reporter and tell her the truth. However, I have connected with her on twitter but she rarely tweets.

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


EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
28 July 2011



SO NOW WE KNOW

They haven't got a clue down under - literally. The reporter fronting the recent Seven on Sunday programme announces an exclusive interview with Kate and Gerry McCann thus:

"Kate and Gerry McCann have lived a never-ending ordeal and they still don't know when, or if, it will ever end. It began on a family holiday in Portugal when Madeleine, their four-year-old daughter, simply vanished. She hasn't been seen since. Tonight the mystery deepens. You are about to see home video never shown before and learn the vital clue Madeleine left behind."

Unfortunately for the expectant viewers, they never get to learn what that vital clue is. Personally, I don't think it's Natasha Kampusch's psychological recovery from trauma. There are however other clues which, thankfully, did not drift onto the cutting room floor.

(Voice over): "On Thursday night, Kate put her daughter to bed for the last time."

KM: "My memory of that evening is really vivid. I mean she was really tired, but she was just cuddled up on my knee. We read a story, mmm...had some treats, some milk and biscuits, errm... and then after they'd done the usual 'toilet-teeth', errm... we went through to the bedroom and read another story 'If You're Happy And You Know It', errm... (long pause)...yep..." (silence).

And there it ends. No description whatsoever of actually putting the children to bed, despite Kate's 'vivid recall' of that evening. The account simply stops dead without a conclusion. This is a classic example of an unbalanced story, and one that's easily viewed with suspicion. Put very simply, if a story does not have a conclusion then there isn't one.

Kate next tells us that when the curtains blew up, they revealed that the shutter was 'all the way up' and the window had been 'pushed right across.' One of several highlights from the Channel 4 documentary (Madeleine Was Here) to be spliced into the proceedings, viewers are treated anew to the episode of the door being 'open much further than we'd left it.' Strange how Matthew Oldfield didn't notice the cold air inside apartment 5A, the various doors and windows having been open for twenty minutes by the time he is said to have peered into the children's bedroom from the lounge. Even stranger that Kate didn't notice the drop in temperature a further half-hour after that. (It was cold enough for Jane Tanner to have borrowed a fleece before setting off up the magic path of invisibility).

But the best is yet to come.

"Did you kill your daughter?" asks the lady journalist. Gerry answers:

"No. That's an emphatic 'no.' I mean the ludicrous thing is. Errm... what... I suppose... what's been purported from Portugal is that Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body. Well, when did she have the accident and died? Cos... 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 when there was an immediate search. It's just nonsense. So. An' if she died when we were in the apartment or fell injured, why would we... why would we cover that up?"

KM (interjecting): "And it gets even more ludicrous, that we've obviously hidden her so incredibly well, where nobody's found her and we hid her (interviewer: 'incredibly well') so well that we then decided that we'd move her in the car which we hired weeks later and you know it's just ridiculous."

Let's take this a step at a time.

"Did you kill your daughter?"

"No. That's an emphatic 'no.'"

This is Gerry speaking don't forget. For any other innocent mortal 'Absolutely not' would have been a sufficient response. Not for Gerry though. Despite his subsequent claim, he gives a decidedly unemphatic answer - 'No.' What follows is meta-language, where he is describing his earlier articulation of a word and does not address the underlying semantics in any way. Incoherent and unnecessary expansion then takes us away from the original question, referencing what has been 'purported' in Portugal, namely that 'Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body.'

Next comes a cunning locking of the incident to a specific time frame, with the suggestion that Madeleine could only have had an accident when unattended. But Gerry slips up in questioning how it would have been possible for them to have disposed of Madeleine's body. In immediately substituting the phrase hidden her body he has already told us what in fact happened. Excitedly he goes on to ask why the parents should have covered up an accident. Why indeed.

It hardly comes as a surprise that Kate leaps in at this point, before Gerry's mouth can write any more bad cheques. She loses no time in elaborating upon the 'hide-and-seek' scenario played out that Thursday night, and the 'ludicrous' idea of their hire car being involved afterwards. But the damage has already been done.

The script, charitably outlined by Goncalo Amaral and fleshed out here by the McCanns, so as to exonerate themselves, depends entirely for its effect upon the premise that little Madeleine disappeared inexplicably that Thursday night; a premise that becomes less clear the closer it is examined. And Gerry is right. It wouldn't make sense to conceal an accident

Edited to add Dr Martin Roberts name and here is correct link

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