Has Gerry McCann 'Harmed' Search for Madeleine

Woofer wrote:Was Kate involved in this piece by TK or is it something thought up by TK independently just to raise a story?

If Kate was involved, is it her and GM planning a `bad cop, good cop` scenario as is usually their practise - him the aggressive one, her the passive victim.

I find it hard to believe that, if they are still together, the McCanns would have condoned this disagreement between them.

The headline is just ridiculous because they, above all others, have harmed the search for Maddie IMO. My goodness, do they think we are all stupid? Obviously they do.

Portia wrote:

Woofer wrote:Was Kate involved in this piece by TK or is it something thought up by TK independently just to raise a story?

If Kate was involved, is it her and GM planning a `bad cop, good cop` scenario as is usually their practise - him the aggressive one, her the passive victim.

I find it hard to believe that, if they are still together, the McCanns would have condoned this disagreement between them.

The headline is just ridiculous because they, above all others, have harmed the search for Maddie IMO. My goodness, do they think we are all stupid? Obviously they do.

So now, if the money for the SY review EVER dries up, this will be laid at DC's door, claiming that he is such a little and vindictive man that he turned of the public funds in order to get back at GM?

What next to expect? Oh wait!

Wasn't it the very same DC who let inadvertently (?) fly very publicly, that there was mention of a vanished child stored in a fridge?
And isn't this exactly what's in the PJs files?
And has this DC yes/no already been briefed extensively on these files and of a probable outcome of the review?

Surely, these are interesting times. I feel for the McCs in a way, though, what with GM complaining that the twins are now approaching internet/Google ages. My friends, tell the truth, before they find out for themselves!

ShuBob wrote:

Portia wrote:

Woofer wrote:Was Kate involved in this piece by TK or is it something thought up by TK independently just to raise a story?

If Kate was involved, is it her and GM planning a `bad cop, good cop` scenario as is usually their practise - him the aggressive one, her the passive victim.

I find it hard to believe that, if they are still together, the McCanns would have condoned this disagreement between them.

The headline is just ridiculous because they, above all others, have harmed the search for Maddie IMO. My goodness, do they think we are all stupid? Obviously they do.

So now, if the money for the SY review EVER dries up, this will be laid at DC's door, claiming that he is such a little and vindictive man that he turned of the public funds in order to get back at GM?

What next to expect? Oh wait!

Wasn't it the very same DC who let inadvertently (?) fly very publicly, that there was mention of a vanished child stored in a fridge?
And isn't this exactly what's in the PJs files?
And has this DC yes/no already been briefed extensively on these files and of a probable outcome of the review?

Surely, these are interesting times. I feel for the McCs in a way, though, what with GM complaining that the twins are now approaching internet/Google ages. My friends, tell the truth, before they find out for themselves!

And from my reading of the section of the Leveson Report concentrating on the McCanns (thanks to Pamalam ), Leveson concluded that he could found no evidence for the freezer claim contrary to Kate's evidence to the inquiry. This was the only claim I noticed Leveson challenge during my cursory read. Now I wonder why the particular claim which Leveson could find no evidence for is the claim Cameron chose to repeat

Angelique wrote:Oh, don't tell me this whole saga is going to hinge on "a freezer" too impossible for words.

If memory serves me it was mentioned, wasn't it?, in Gerry's blogs before he redacted them. Then it went viral throughout the Forums and occasionally surfaces now and then. Even I remember reading about it and writing about it. Does this mean DC has read or reads the Forums?

goingdutch wrote:Hi, I have been a long time lurker and this is my first post. This article in the Sunday Express has surprised me today more than the other one about Gerry ruining the search for Madeleine. Jenny Murat is writing a book to put forward their side of the story on the Madeleine McCann case but what surprises me even more is the headline. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/361930/Jenny-Murat-Kate-McCann-printed-such-awful-things-about-my-Robert-in-her-Madeleine-book KATE MCCANN PRINTED SUCH AWFUL THINGS ABOUT MY ROBERT IN HER MADELEINE BOOK . I hope we see more of this, rather than the one-sided reporting we have had in the last five years.

russiandoll wrote:quote " Kate McCann fears her husband’s criticism of the Prime Minister may hamper the search for missing daughter Madeleine "
Does this mean she might sue her husband?

goingdutch wrote:Hi, I have been a long time lurker and this is my first post. This article in the Sunday Express has surprised me today more than the other one about Gerry ruining the search for Madeleine. Jenny Murat is writing a book to put forward their side of the story on the Madeleine McCann case but what surprises me even more is the headline. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/361930/Jenny-Murat-Kate-McCann-printed-such-awful-things-about-my-Robert-in-her-Madeleine-book KATE MCCANN PRINTED SUCH AWFUL THINGS ABOUT MY ROBERT IN HER MADELEINE BOOK . I hope we see more of this, rather than the one-sided reporting we have had in the last five years.

Woofer wrote:Silly Dave put himself in a vulnerable position when he said at the start of the Inquiry that it would have to be satisfactory to the Dowlers and McCanns. IMO both he and Leveson have been rather naive when it comes to seeing what game the McCanns are playing, and many of the other witnesses. Swearing on oath these days means nought to some people.

tcat wrote:

Woofer wrote:Silly Dave put himself in a vulnerable position when he said at the start of the Inquiry that it would have to be satisfactory to the Dowlers and McCanns. IMO both he and Leveson have been rather naive when it comes to seeing what game the McCanns are playing, and many of the other witnesses. Swearing on oath these days means nought to some people.

I don't think for a minute either of them are naive. The PM will imo use anybody who attracts a lot of publicity, but he'd ditch them just as quickly. I don't personally think any of these people believe in K&G 100% - they're just using them, at the moment.

I think the PM created the Inquiry just to get himself out of a hole last year, and he always had the intention of fighting whatever Leveson concluded, and he may well have had the McCanns in mind as one tool he could possibly use.

Woofer wrote:

tcat wrote:

Woofer wrote:Silly Dave put himself in a vulnerable position when he said at the start of the Inquiry that it would have to be satisfactory to the Dowlers and McCanns. IMO both he and Leveson have been rather naive when it comes to seeing what game the McCanns are playing, and many of the other witnesses. Swearing on oath these days means nought to some people.

I don't think for a minute either of them are naive. The PM will imo use anybody who attracts a lot of publicity, but he'd ditch them just as quickly. I don't personally think any of these people believe in K&G 100% - they're just using them, at the moment.

I think the PM created the Inquiry just to get himself out of a hole last year, and he always had the intention of fighting whatever Leveson concluded, and he may well have had the McCanns in mind as one tool he could possibly use.

It beats me how Leveson (and many others) seemed to believe what the Mcs said just because they said so - this is one of the main things that I cannot understand in this case - why people like Andy Redwood just accept what they say. The only conclusion I can draw is that they are either stupid or naive. One would hope that Leveson is a wise man, but perhaps not `street wise`. Yes, Dave just spouts off whatever gets people off his back in that moment, same as most politicians and why one cannot believe a single word they say. Maybe Leveson had no alternative but to make out he believed the Mcs.

Portia wrote:Seems to me the McCs are hedging their bets: He with his self professed eye on the wider issue (as in becoming an elected MP perhaps?) in bed with DM; she more 'sympathetic' to DC.
So whichever way the wind turns, one of them is there to be seen to have jumped on the 'winning' bandwagon right from the start.

Good cop vs bad cop; the age old ploy.

Neither Tory nor Labour, lost/took/abducted or neglected Maddie Mc Cann however, and neither can ever bring her back.

Only the reconstruction might have been a first step.

So how come these McCs are so full of venom against the as-yet-to-be-redeemed British politicians now? Are any more payments expected to be extractable from the British taxpayers, through them?

Thought so!