Re: Still running... away with it

by aiyoyo 25.03.12 20:43

rainbow-fairy wrote:
anil39200 wrote:Just watched this interview. Its the little things really which now make me even more suspicious of their involvement. Their interviewing seems to have become like a mantra, repeating the main core story, but with slight embellishments here and there to make the story slick.

The little mistakes are the ones that trip a person up," 70 metres as the clow fries" almost but was quickly put right, and the twins viewing "the abduction as a burgelry", not a burglary. Apparently it was a man, the man that friend JT saw carrying a child, this is now trotted out almost parrot fashion, there are many more of these in the interview, These little slips display a lack of real belief in the scenario . There are two other important points I think IMO might be worth adding to the excellent posts others have written. First, I think the idea of sitting opposite may well be a way of affirming each other, but also the way the mother gazes "Diana-like" sadly into the camera, with an almost doe-like expression and holds the gaze for just too long for it to be real emotion, its practised, but IMO its done to make the viewer feel sorry with her.

The father also seems to need to be constantly ibn control, I think the interviewer tried to be neutral and was not sycophantic like some daytime presenters on UK TV have been with them, but I agree, you do ache for someone to put a few real testing questions to them. However, I guess by now all questions are pre-checked prior to the interview. She seemed haunted as someone else mentioned, but there definitely has been some restyling done on both of them as the father is made to look relaxed and in control . To me, and again purely IMO, they still look distant and detached and again seem to avoid responsibility for their part in it all.
Oh you betcha the questions are pre-checked and rehearsed and have been since the earliest days which tells you all you need to know.
It'd just be good to see an interviewer drop an enexpected question in (could they be sued for this? Breach of contract?) We wouldn't necessarily need an answer. The reaction itself would tell us enough.

Incidentally, browsing the 'net I found a quote which relates to what we are saying. When I can get to a laptop I'm going to attach it to my signature:

"Truth is artless and innocent--like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure, because it fears not detection."

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections

It does not matter how many times they were asked the same questions, even if scripted and agreed in advance.
It matters how they answer them.
No one answers the same question in the same manner twice.
This pair answer them all the time in a consistent robotic way - same scripted answers memorized by heart.

There will always be a slight variation in people choice of words; in how they tell a story every time even if they are asked the same thing repeatedly. There are only so many set questions an interviewer can ask without taking it out of bound, but there should not be a limit to how the parents want to relate or expand on their story.
On top of that there should be connectivity to their inner feeling at the time of the interview - be it they were anxious initially to anguish, desperation, or hopelessness as time progresses, this should come through during the interview if you are really answering in tune to your true inner feelings.
But with this pair, no matter when, where, how, and how many times they were asked they answered as if delivering a script - without any variation not even in their choice of words, delivered totally void of feeling in a cold and detached manner that you don't see any interviewer being able to feel connected to their anguish that they personally want to help them appeal to their abductor.

There is such a lack of congruence on their part that there is nothing the interviewer can feel drawn to them or touched by them that they feel the anguish of the mccanns that they want to console them or help them make the appeal.
If a person is so genuinely anguished, distressed and unconsolable, that emotion is often pick up by others in the same room that there is a sense of heartbreaking hopelessness about it - a poignant sense to it so to speak. With the mccanns controlled sense of delivering their interview in that cold and detached manner, it must be hard for people in the room to feel anything for them surely even if they want to. I am sure the interviewers are left feeling they can get more emotion out of a robot.

To this day, I have yet to see the mccanns addressing Madeleine or talking to her, or appealing to her abductor to do the sensible thing. They must think there is no TV in the cave in the lawless village yet kate hoped Madeleine will read her bewk.

This is all about promoting kate's bewk and nothing to do with their campaign to find Madeleine.
I wonder whether they are paid for the interview and whether the money will go into the Fund.

You would think that now that the Yard is doing the review, they would at least drop into the Yard's office to offer their cooperation, instead of trotting the continent to market the bewk.

by aiyoyo 25.03.12 21:08

Oh I forget to mention, I find Gerry's answer to what was your last memory of Madeleine odd. He said it was the last photo. ERR!!

Did he not see her after that?
What about later time? What about milk and biscuit and story reading time? Or when they put her to bed?
What about the time he saw her during his check and though how beautiful she was?

The mind boggles.

by **tigger** 25.03.12 21:23

aiyoyo wrote:Oh I forget to mention, I find Gerry's answer to what was your last memory of Madeleine odd. He said it was the last photo. ERR!!

Did he not see her after that?
What about later time? What about milk and biscuit and story reading time? Or when they put her to bed?
What about the time he saw her during his check and though how beautiful she was?

The mind boggles.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Blacksmith, 30/6/11 Madeleine as a primary source....etc.
Exactly your point! Constructed memories.

by sofa 25.03.12 21:39

I have just finished reading another interesting comment from Dr Martin Roberts 'Another Story' (25/03/2012) on the MC file and I think it gives us enough clue as why an abduction could not have happened, it would be great if SY takes the time to look on the site. noAnother Story, 25 March 2012ther Story, 25 March 2012 ant

by Guest 25.03.12 21:41

sofa wrote:I have just finished reading another interesting comment from Dr Martin Roberts 'Another Story' (25/03/2012) on the MC file and I think it gives us enough clue as why an abduction could not have happened, it would be great if SY takes the time to look on the site. noAnother Story, 25 March 2012ther Story, 25 March 2012 ant

Here on this thread sofa.........

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

by sofa 25.03.12 21:44

Thanks CF, I will get there.... eventually....

by aiyoyo 25.03.12 21:56

I would love to have blacksmith analysed Gerry's answers in this interview.

Another strange answer he gave is :
Madeleine could have been moved very easily and the Spanish border is only about 90 mins away and obviously you're on the Mediterranean and one of the aspects why we are campaigning internationally...eh... is, she could have been taken anywhere.

Followed later by: We had stayed on in Portugal, to be close to Madeleine to be close to the investigation.

I don't think he meant to say Maddie was taken from the Atlantic (where Portugal is) to the Mediterranean (Morocco perhaps) .yet he stupidly hang around in PDL to be close to her.
He was obviously trying to impress upon the audience how incompetent the bunch of sardine munchers were...not closing border and all.

Honestly, who ever heard of a traveling paedophile or abductor?
According to Janey, the man she saw was on foot, and there wasn't any strange car reported or recorded in the vicinity yet Gerry wants people to believe the abductor was able to cross from borders freely in the Mediterranean as if on Aladdin flying carpet!

More importantly, that is not trait of a paedophile - travelling with their prey I mean.
Usually their catch is just a toy they play with then discard quickly to get it off his hand. The last thing they would do is to travel with the prey, especially such a high profile one .

Sometimes I wonder whether Gerry even listens to himself, and this man is supposed to be a Dr.....arrgh!!!!

by **PeterMac** 25.03.12 22:02

aiyoyo wrote:
Sometimes I wonder whether Gerry even listens to himself, and this man is supposed to be a Dr.....arrgh!!!!

Perhaps he is training to be a Proctologist.

by rainbow-fairy 25.03.12 22:37

PeterMac wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Sometimes I wonder whether Gerry even listens to himself, and this man is supposed to be a Dr.....arrgh!!!!
Perhaps he is training to be a Proctologist.

Well he certainly talks out of his a*se...

by **tigger** 26.03.12 8:02

Aiyoyo, I've always believed that they meant to stay in Portugal indefinitely.

From 'The original plan?'
They were going to learn Portugese - I find that very, very interesting.
Were they going to stay in Portugal forever? For a few years? With the excuse of looking for Madeleine?
K still keeps saying how close she feels to Madeleine in Portugal, when she should feel that at home, where all Madeleine's things are.

I can see an original plan where all the publicity and the Fund would have worked fine, but they could have stayed in Portugal with a good reason, for as long as they liked. They could even have sold the house in Rothley - showing what sacrifices they would make for Maddie.
I just have a feeling that returning to the UK wasn't in the original plan at all.

Bit vain, quoting my own topic, but it still seems valid to me.

by russiandoll 26.03.12 9:50

great post aiyoyo..........the whole thing is incongruous, their interviewers incuding this one do look regularly as if they feel they are in the presence of aliens speaking. I personally believe Kate must detach herself for sanity's sake, I think she has invented a reality she has started to believe in to cope...even if it is a lie at base.
Has any interviewer ever asked them if they have appealed or would like to appeal to the abductor, if the pair beieive Maddie is being cared for by a person or a couple wanting a child..........to look after her welfare by having her medically checked? They dont need to mention any attendant issues to the coloboma[ if there is one, I doubt it after my reading], they are doctors and as such would be very careful over their children's health...it would be a totally natural appeal to make.

by aiyoyo 26.03.12 12:32

tigger wrote:Aiyoyo, I've always believed that they meant to stay in Portugal indefinitely.

From 'The original plan?'
They were going to learn Portugese - I find that very, very interesting.
Were they going to stay in Portugal forever? For a few years? With the excuse of looking for Madeleine?
K still keeps saying how close she feels to Madeleine in Portugal, when she should feel that at home, where all Madeleine's things are.

I can see an original plan where all the publicity and the Fund would have worked fine, but they could have stayed in Portugal with a good reason, for as long as they liked. They could even have sold the house in Rothley - showing what sacrifices they would make for Maddie.
I just have a feeling that returning to the UK wasn't in the original plan at all.

Bit vain, quoting my own topic, but it still seems valid to me.

But what would be the advantage of making Portugal their domicile? Is cardiologist in demand there?

I don't know what to think because them not coming home prior to been made arguidos is really odd considering they were skint. Their family had to help them out financially and they even had to use the Fund to pay for their mortgage until advised against.

If Maddie met her fate in the apt what was in it for them to stay? That really do my head in just trying to make sense of that, unless they want to avoid friendly questions back home and cant face their family. Apart from that I cant see a good and valid reason.

Either way you look at it their stay on for few months was strange. Of course I don't believe they were hanging around waiting for Maddie to be returned to them.

by aiyoyo 26.03.12 12:48

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

short and sweet.

by **tigger** 26.03.12 14:42

1) The original story was simple: children safely locked in apartment, broken shutters, abduction.
As we all know, this didn't work. Never mind, make it up as you go along. The plan could still work.
2) what was in place for the plan to work?
Publicity. Maximum world wide publicity.
Key figures in positions of power to facilitate and protect.
Tapas to back up all their stories however often they changed.
3) Connections in Portugal, esp. PdL in the form of Murat (G had been on golfing weekends several times to Portugal - my bet is PdL) Murat may have agreed to be the patsy, since not a scrap of evidence would be found on him. Compensation for this would have been arranged.
4) The location and time. Gerry most likely knew Murat and PdL. The very suitable corner apartment which belonged to a non-related McCann may have been known to him as well.
5) What should have happened and indeed did:
The press worked fantastically well
The 'fighting fund' great success
Website set up with facilities and information where to send donations
Important people, celebrities contacted to 'help' and/or donate lavishly in the full glare of publicity
They would become world wide celebrities.

6) What should have happened and didn't:
They were going to learn Portugese -
Were they going to stay in Portugal forever? For a few years? With the excuse of looking for Madeleine?
K still keeps saying how close she feels to Madeleine in Portugal, when she should feel that at home, where all Madeleine's things are.
G told a journalist when he was on his way to Berlin (v. early days) that the twins didn't need to go to school for at least two years.... replying to a question on how long they would stay in Portugal.

I can see an original plan where all the publicity and the Fund would have worked fine, but they could have stayed in Portugal with a good reason, for as long as they liked. They could even have sold the house in Rothley - showing what sacrifices they would make for Maddie.
I just have a feeling that returning to the UK wasn't in the original plan at all.

But once the dogs had found the evidence of a dead body and they were made arguidos that plan was gone.

Most of this is from my earlier quoted topic.
As soon as the money started coming in, they may have thought their troubles were over.
I don't think either of them are dedicated to their profession. I'm sure the 'ambassador for lost children' or some such idea - would have been their primary goal. Gerry already had all the political jargon off pat.
If the PJ hadn't been so persistent they might actually have made it. It's the main reason they hate Amaral, imo. He stole their beautiful future.

t

by aiyoyo 26.03.12 14:49

Sorry. O/T

Whatever happens to Amaral's books? I thought the deadline for return is already up.

Hope we hear soon about that. Maybe ID is packing her knickers right now.

by Cristobell 26.03.12 16:41

aiyoyo wrote:Why did they do it, even now? Why they hide their crime is easier to understand.
Why they continue to appear on international tv to lie is a $64M question.
The poster who said the review is giving them a false sense of security may be right - they are continuing to fool themselves.
See how they were able to repeat the same lies over and over again.

They discarded their backyard story because it makes they look stupid anyway the "as if dinning in their back garden" line.
Now Kate said its 70m as the crow files.
She was still peddling the open window and whooshing curtains demonstrated with the same hands gesture.
She mentioned the Yard reviewing files and leads in the same breath.
Still saying no police force is looking that is why they had to do it themselves. (PR for her bewk no doubt. They must be very desperate about their finance if they are to meet mounting their legal costs.)

He mentioned there was no DNA In the hired car, something about there were five of them therefore something has to match, contradicting himself.
Also, he dragged his friends in, so it's a collective thing.

They both looked rough. Parents in a genuine situation of a missing child would also look rough, but there is something else about this pair - something eerily unnatural and very difficult to watch. Their face, not in congruence with their inner feeling, is there for all to see. They are wearing a mask, and whether they like it or not, their struggle to control against inner conscious it on display for all to see. Body language expert would have field days with this pair.

The guilt ravishing them from inside has taken its toll on them, more on kate than gerry.
She looks bloody awful if not for the make up and make over hairdo - cold eyes and tough set mouth and her infamous sighing and heaving of the chest at pretense of despair is very hard to watch.

Just look at the interviewer's quizzical expression - did he believe them?
This lying pair were neither spontaneous or tuned in with the wavelength of the interviewer and observers in the studio. They couldn't let themselves go with their emotion, just be natural and react to questions and be tuned into the interviewer wavelength and tell their story as it was. They can't - simple as - because they were trying hard to say contrary to truth as they knew it. Their inner reality is at odd with the front they put up and there is just no connectivity in vibes either way. No one in the studio can feel their truth neither can they feel the other party empathy if it was there, which should have been the case in an interview of in a genuine case of missing person.

They were placed apart for a change. so couldn't clutch each other for support. But just look how they sought eyes contact with each other when they answer questions, as if a need to affirm each other story tallies with their script and the looking at each other confirms their shared secret.

Everything about them is spooky and eerily unnatural...very difficult to watch. Both their expression cold rather than sad. Both were very controlled as if robotic programed to chant out a script.

Is that going to help them sell their bewk....I dont know?

Excellent summary Aiyoyo, agree, it made very uncomfortable viewing.

by Cristobell 26.03.12 16:53

tigger wrote:Several people on MM pointed out that Gerry said (first time?)

it was a collective mistake T 7 take note? Handing out the song sheet?

Yes, quite a sinister little message eh....

by tiny 26.03.12 17:11

Cristobell wrote:
tigger wrote:Several people on MM pointed out that Gerry said (first time?)

it was a collective mistake T 7 take note? Handing out the song sheet?

Yes, quite a sinister little message eh....

this makes me wonder if some people are right in that the tapas 7 know what happend to Madeleine,oh dear the tapas 7 had better watch thier backs with kate and gerry,because there is no way on earth that they are going to go down on their own.

by russiandoll 26.03.12 17:41

I am not sure that K and G should go down on their own, if others were complicit, they too should face the full force of the law.

by tiny 26.03.12 18:02

russiandoll wrote: I am not sure that K and G should go down on their own, if others were complicit, they too should face the full force of the law.

quite agree,just pointing out that some believe that only a couple of the tapas 7 knew any thing about what happend to Madeleine,but by that one sentence i believe more than a couple know.

by Cristobell 26.03.12 18:08

tiny wrote:
russiandoll wrote: I am not sure that K and G should go down on their own, if others were complicit, they too should face the full force of the law.

quite agree,just pointing out that some believe that only a couple of the tapas 7 knew any thing about what happend to Madeleine,but by that one sentence i believe more than a couple know.

I don't think that message was quite as covert as Gerry thought - lets hope SY noticed it.

by aiyoyo 26.03.12 19:15

russiandoll wrote: I am not sure that K and G should go down on their own, if others were complicit, they too should face the full force of the law.

Gerry was very nasty when he made the remark. I cant see why he needs to drag them in, unless it was a warning to them to stick to their story or everyone will go down because even if they were not complicit in the crime they were complicit in the cover up - they must be!

But since he did not specify no one knows what the collective mistake was.
Was it neglect?
Was it complicity in a crime against Maddie?

I think it's probably just a case of gerry not engaging his brain or talking through his arse as usual.
There is no benefit in it for them for their friends to go down with them.

by **tigger** 26.03.12 20:05

Isn't there such a thing as turning Queen's evidence? I believe that can be done. Don't forget the meeting at a hotel nr. Rothley in November 07 - I read once that just before that it seemed as if one or two of the T7 were ready to talk to the police.
In that case a veiled warning might seem advisable?

by uppatoffee 26.03.12 20:42

aiyoyo wrote:Sorry. O/T

Whatever happens to Amaral's books? I thought the deadline for return is already up.

Hope we hear soon about that. Maybe ID is packing her knickers right now.

The deadline was 24th I think. No news yet as far as I know.

by Guest 26.03.12 21:06

uppatoffee wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:Sorry. O/T

Whatever happens to Amaral's books? I thought the deadline for return is already up.

Hope we hear soon about that. Maybe ID is packing her knickers right now.

The deadline was 24th I think. No news yet as far as I know.

Deadline is March 29th, here is the update I posted on March 23rd from Joana....

candyfloss wrote:UPDATE on Joana's site today...........

Update on March 23, 2012

The mandatary and lawyer of the McCann couple, Isabel Duarte, has until the 29th of this month to return the books; the 10 days deadline are not consecutive and are measured as working days. Meanwhile, the lawyer to whom the books were entrusted by the First Instance Civil Court of Lisbon, has been trying to delay the restitution of the books to its rightful owners as ordered by the Supreme Court of Justice alleging that the Court of Appeals judgement did not transit in rem judicatam [unappealable decision/final ruling].

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

by uppatoffee 26.03.12 21:12

Thanks Candyfloss!

by sofa 26.03.12 23:04

It seems to me that their 'pact of silence' is not as strong as I might have thought. Is Gerry trying to intimidate tapas 7 with 'collective mistake'?

by Ribisl 27.03.12 1:19

tigger wrote:Isn't there such a thing as turning Queen's evidence? I believe that can be done. Don't forget the meeting at a hotel nr. Rothley in November 07 - I read once that just before that it seemed as if one or two of the T7 were ready to talk to the police.
In that case a veiled warning might seem advisable?

Criteria to be applied when considering immunity etc.
The decision on when it is appropriate to offer a formal written agreement in any particular case is entirely a matter for the discretion of the specified prosecutor and nothing in the 2005 Act creates a right in the defendant to insist that assistance given or promised is recognised in this way.

The criteria to be considered in determining whether it is appropriate to grant immunity to a witness were set out by the then Attorney General in a written answer to the House of Commons on 9 November 1981. They are as follows:

Whether, in the interests of justice, it is of more value to have a suspected person as a witness for the Crown rather than as a possible defendant;
Whether, in the interests of public safety and security, the obtaining of information about the extent and nature of criminal activities is of greater importance than the possible conviction of an individual;
Whether it is very unlikely that any information could be obtained without an offer of immunity and whether it is also very unlikely that any prosecution could be launched against the person to whom the immunity is offered.

(Crown Prosecution Service website)

I think both the first and the third could be applicable in this case. With all his public display of swaggering self-assurance, Gerry must be a very worried man these days. Kate looks like she is about to crack under the strain and no longer in tune with him. The T7 he has bullied and managed so efficiently immediately after the event have become the weakest link because the burden of perjury must be taking its toll on each one of them and on balance whatever they were supposed to gain in return (collective cover-up of child neglect?) must seem quite insignificant in comparison. Unless they themselves were guilty of something rather more sinister than just leaving their children locked up while they dined...

by **tigger** 27.03.12 9:36

Thanks for explaining that Ribisl, I just wanted to add: apart from the pay out the T7 got from the press - allegedly paid into the Fund although I doubt that - they have every reason to resent the toxic McCanns.
Whatever they may or may not have done, it's probably ruined all their careers, ROB certainly said something to that effect.

by aiyoyo 27.03.12 16:56

Dont know where to place this must read link, so here's as good as any thread.

With acknowledgement and thanks to Joana Morais.

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