15 May 2009

“The McCanns are ‘forced’ to search for their daughter”


The interview with Oprah Winfrey, analysed by a forensic psychologist

Paulo Sargento looks at the McCanns with clinical attention. He understands the contradictions, he identifies the signs of pressure that they are subject to. Innocent or guilty, they can’t escape from the machine that has taken over their lives.

interview by Carlos Saraiva

You have been suggesting that Kate McCann may commit suicide. What leads you to conclude this possibility?

I don’t think she may commit suicide. I received the information, before last Christmas, that she tried to commit suicide and was admitted to a hospital in Leicester, although there was never any registration of entry.

But how did you find out? Is your source trustworthy?

Well, it’s an English source, the same that on other occasions transmitted things that matched the truth.

Anyway, after all these months, she has been showing signs of some seclusion, inhibition and greater sadness. She used to jog and stopped doing that. And there’s something that is rather interesting: people who are addicted to jogging, when they stop practising, they tend to grow fatter, not thinner, like in Kate’s case. That would only be possible in one case: if the person was, in fact, very depressed. The other issue concerns the reports from the family itself, which are counterproductive, like in the Channel 4 documentary, where they try to make us believe that everything is normal in that family, with Gerry working and Kate looking after the children. The truth is that she was no longer seen taking the twins to school, or going out with them for a walk. And there were even rumours from Kate’s mother that there were problems between the couple. This talk about Kate’s depressive state is not mine, but rather from the friends and relatives themselves, who say that she is obsessed with the process and spends hours reading it. As a matter of fact, an English newspaper mentions that she has been repeating that she’d rather be in a coma than suffering in the way that she does. This kind of signs help to make the information more credible.

Would you say that she is psychologically ill?

I can’t get into people’s heads, but considering the context, considering what is known and considering Kate’s speech itself, there is a strong possibility that she is suffering a serious emotional disarray.

Wasn’t that inevitable, independently of what one thinks happened to Maddie?

She knows that the child is not coming back.

How?

The washing of Maddie’s soft toy, on the 12th of July 2007, that Kate mentions in her own diary. It’s very likely that it is the first expression of a mourning process, which can be compared with the fact that she apparently didn’t recognise her daughter in the age progression portraits that she was shown on Oprah’s show. In the first situation, at least in her own words, Kate doesn’t admit that Maddie may return. And she alleges that the soft toy was very dirty and didn’t hold her daughter’s smell anymore, so she washed it. This may be interpreted in two ways: she either wants to conceal evidence or she is convinced that her daughter is not coming back. But I add yet another possibility that reunites both, which is, to hide the indication and not expecting the little girl to return. Of course the portrait is an artistic work and since then, new sightings started to appear. Kate is unable to project her daughter’s growth, which helps us to understand this woman’s grieving, regardless of her having had any participation in the events, or not.

Let’s talk about the McCanns’ interview with Oprah. From a psychological point of view, how do you evaluate the couple’s behaviour?

Image sanctification at the highest level. Notice that even Kate’s clothes were chosen for the occasion. Do you ever remember seeing her in a skirt?

Now that you mention it, I noticed the extremely thin legs…

Of course you did. She presents a different image, using a skirt for the first time, with a contents that is more maternal, more familiar more adequate under the point of view of a 40-year-old woman who has a daughter that has been abducted. All in all, fitting better with what the North American middle class likes to watch on television. But you noticed her very thin legs. Well, people who regularly jog get muscled legs, but once they stop practising and continue eating, they fatten. Well, if one stops practising and is depressed, one loses the appetite and grows thin. Note that even people who are not technically trained, do notice these small details. When I mention the suicide issue, it’s also a way of saying: watch this woman, because she needs help.

You were talking about the clothes that were chosen for the Oprah interview…

Yes, notice the almost tepid colour of the cardigan and the manner in which it matches the colour of Maddie’s clothes that can be seen on the screen behind the McCanns. Totally studied. The replies are automatic, as if they had been dictated by an advisor.

The questions were also kind…

They were prepared. I believe that the couple was paid to go there. And they only went, previously knowing the questions. They wouldn’t go any other way. Don’t doubt that. As a matter of fact, they had been invited before, and they only went now because Gonçalo Amaral is translating his book into several languages and a reply was necessary. The questions were prepared and the replies were rehearsed. Just analyse the grammatical style that is used in the replies to Oprah and check the grammatical style that is used in Clarence Mitchell’s press conferences. I’m sure you’ll discover major similarities. And on certain blogs, you can see the same resemblance. This is called media manipulation.

What do you think about Kate’s crying?

Her crying may be genuine. There is great pressure in the air.

But there’s a change in this behaviour, throughout the process. Kate starts out by not crying and is severely criticised for that, as if she didn’t feel pain, then there’s a reactive phase against criticism, and she cries, and now, on this stage, which is America’s most famous talk show, which is broadcast all over the world, she cries again. How do you evaluate this change?

Well, when we mourn, if we’re not confronted with our loss on a daily basis, we cry increasingly less and reformulate increasingly more the destructive effects of that loss. But if we’re confronted every single day, that is a huge pressure that ends up throwing us out of balance, and Kate on an emotional level, Kate is at the end.

In terms of worsening the depressive state, or mourning and returning back to normal?

In terms of worsening the depressive state, and, unfortunately for her, that will be at the core of the solution of this case, one of these days.

Do you think that when she “breaks”, the case will be solved?

Yes. I think this is about a sacrificial dilemma. Imagine a scenario where there is, indeed, a terrible accident with Maddie. The girl is found dead and the parents face a dilemma: let’s assume this, we call the police and confirm that this was an accident, but we’ll have to justify the other two children, why they were alone until that time. Especially because the couple wasn’t aware of the fact that in Portugal they were not subject to the crime of exposure and abandonment (they would only be so in case of intent). They had been here for four days and it wasn’t possible that they had had time to inform themselves. Apart from that, they weren’t sober. This has to be said, considering the consumption of bottles during dinner. Therefore, they have to decide swiftly between concealing a reality, sacrificing one person for the benefit of their lives, their careers and the twins’ lives. In a cost/benefit relationship, the choice of the greater good for the greatest number is often made by human beings. Although it may be merely an impulsive, not thought out choice, it forces for a pact to be kept, so it can result for a greater number of people.

And this, for me, is a likely vision of what happened that night. Please note that all of us, under more or less dramatic circumstances, are faced with these sacrificial dilemmas. It just happens that in this case, the sacrifice is too big, and if it was done in this manner, it is a crime.

I sometimes think that this case is on its way to becoming an unbearable enigma. I presume that you don’t share this opinion, given the fact that you believe that some day, someone will “break”…

That will happen for sure, there are too many people involved in the matter and that is going to happen.

But you spoke about the possibility that the child died, and a possible flight forward…

… that is a possibility.

Admitting that everything was a terrible accident, is it possible that one could interiorise that nothing happened, that she is alive, despite being dead, that she will return, although that will never happen. Is it possible, the contradiction between what one did and what one wants to believe in?

Yes, if we’re talking about people with psychotic features, which is not the case.

But could it be a case of social survival?

Precisely. That story of doing something and then believing one didn’t do it, it’s very complex. In some cases it’s possible, but we can only tell for sure by evaluating people. I don’t think that Gerry and Kate have the characteristics to create such a dissociation, whether psychotic or not, that at the moment they would confuse reality with a theory that they invented afterwards.

Who leads, from the psychological point of view? Is it Gerry?

He’s dominating and controlling, there is no doubt about that, but he has a major problem: he’s very impulsive. For example, I remember his reaction during an interview in Spain, when he was confronted with the possible death of his daughter. The man “freaked out”. In an admirable manner, Kate managed to calm down not only Gerry, but the entire film crew. She’s sitting in front of the cameras of a foreign channel, with ‘difficult’ questions. There are actors who are used to the media frenzy that wouldn’t have behaved so well. She is the key, she has been controlling through a more feminine strategy, careful to keep the relationships of status quo, not of rupture. In that sense, Kate dominates. Therefore, any weakness from her part is revealing.

Now with this issue of her failing, we have been seeing a succession of silly acts: the entourage gives foolish replies, they make ridiculous sketches, they arrange for five persons to say that they saw a guy with pimples, well…

But that’s the usual ‘folklore’.

This only means that when she loses control, everything around her is a folklore to try to hide that there are problems. This has only one purpose, which is to keep people busy in the newspapers and in blogs, running over each other. And everyone has forgotten to talk about Maddie already. Unfortunately, nobody cares about Maddie.

This has reached another level. We should use an old scientific principle: for as long as we have a simple enough explanation to justify a certain piece of data, we shouldn’t look for a complex one, because it may confuse us. And the situation of the child’s death on location, with the subsequent concealing of the cadaver, is the most simple one that allows us to understand most of the data. Going out to search for an abductor without consistency or data, is silly.

Independently of the psychological frailty, momentary or not, admitting that there was the child’s death, and in that case, a machination was put in place, we would be looking at two diabolical minds. It would take unusual mental strength to take this lie forward, wouldn’t it?

I also think it’s not only them. When it’s about survival, we adopt traces that are as adaptive as possible towards that goal, even if it conflicts with the current social norm. It may not be morally accepted, but it’s human. What I think is that they never imagined the media multiplication that this was going to suffer. They imagined that there would be some initial confusion, we were going to be seen as a paedophile country, they would rapidly become victims and things would stay that way. I’m going to mention one single detail: Gerry McCann went three months without writing in his blog. And during that period, almost nobody spoke about Maddie. I wrote in my blog that it was an attempt to extinguish a trademark, to extinguish a phenomenon. I’m not going to think that Gerry reacted to my message, but two days later he came to justify the silence, alleging that he had been working with the investigation team…

People ask: but if it was them, why do they continue searching? I think they aren’t searching for anything anymore, they are merely forced to keep up the media interest, they are “forced” to look for their daughter. Faced with external pressure, they have to do something, or definitely the spell will turn against the sorcerer and the whole thing falls apart. That’s why I say that the couple is now subject to such pressure that it must cause them atrocious suffering, but they cannot escape anymore. This machine cannot stop anymore. And that is why, when Kate is more fragile, new things always appear.

The advisor’s ‘gaffe’

Clarence Mitchell, a former advisor to the English government, has been the controller of information in the “Maddie case”.

The McCanns’ advisor committed an unforgivable ‘gaffe’ during an interview to Sky News. When he is told that a certain criminologist defended that Maddie’s abduction had probably taken place in an unplanned manner, that Maddie had wandered out of the house looking for her parents and a paedophile had passed by at the time and took her, Mitchell says an interesting thing: ‘that didn’t happen, that’s ludicrous, Kate knows it, she knows that didn’t happen’. Now, what can we conclude from this?

If she knows that didn’t happen, does she know how it happened?

That’s the first deduction. Why? We must admit that this theory dismantled another one, that of the open window and Kate’s fingerprints on the window. This leads us to think that there is always a cat hiding with its tail sticking out, that is to say, a set of contradictions that lead me to freely consider that Kate has in fact a serious emotional disturbance and that she tried to commit suicide. Even more so, because parents in this kind of situation, who lose their children under serious circumstances, approximately 80% become depressed, and among those, an important part assumes characteristics of seriousness that lead them to try suicide, or even to commit suicide. Therefore, the interpretation is parsimonious although speculative, but it is not as far from context as one may think.

“Gonçalo Amaral was exonerated because he ‘pressured’ Kate”

“There were many people saying that Gerry McCann was to become a Secretary of State for Health in the English government. That might explain something, but one must also look at the close relationship with prime minister Gordon Brown’s brother. There is no doubt that Gonçalo Amaral was not ‘marked’ on the day that he made that statement. Others said much worse. As a matter of fact, the aberration is how Dr Alípio Ribeiro keeps his post when he publicly assumes that the constitution of the McCanns as arguidos was precipitated. Gonçalo Amaral was exonerated because right on the first day, he started ‘pressuring’ Kate. And soon after, the ambassador arrives with a PJ top officer – I’m not going to say who that is – and nobody else is questioned on location. Gonçalo Amaral is ‘marked’ right away. The couple may have had nothing to do with their daughter’s disappearance, but they must be hiding something very important to justify this kind of interference.”


source: O Crime, 14.05.2009, paper edition

41 comments:

  1. That made uncomfortable reading.

    Whilst I would like to see this case resolved and the perpetrators of Maddy's demise brought to justice, I would hate to think that bloggers and forums are pushing Kate McCann towards thoughts of suicide by not allowing discussions of this case to drop.

    But then isn't that the ultimate blackmail? Leave us alone with our crime or I'll kill myself and two children will be left without a mother because of you?

    They are the ones who keep this in the public eye by constantly begging for money and spouting lies and accusing other people. They could quite easily have let this drop when their arguido status was lifted but, no, they carried on and have made things worse.

    So now we have the scenario that the twins are being brainwashed into believing their sister will come back and a depressed mother who could be bordering on the verge of suicide.

    Why don't they just tell the truth and plead insanity? They're going to get away with this anyway so why not do the right thing for the twins now. It's too late for Maddie but there's still time to save the twins from a lifetime of mental illness and unimaginable sense of betrayal when they're old enough to realise that their parents lied to them about their sister.

    They have brought all this on themselves and people are sick to death of them playing their 'victim' card. But who are going to be the real victims in this case? The twins.

    For the sake of those two remaining children, this case needs to be stopped one way or another.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Oprah show will nex feature a monkey with a stray dog.
    I wonder if she is trying to tell the Mccanns something.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Very simple really.
    When you tell the first a lie you then have to lie to cover the first lie. You then forget what you've said, and it all spyrals out of control.
    I am willing to go for the accident story but do not like Payne's part in this. It smells.

    ReplyDelete
  4. When is Amoral on then?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Gerry becoming Secretary of State for Health?
    A man who was not capable to find himself a job, a couple of years before the disappearence?
    Megalomany, he wants to impress people.
    These people are sick, both of them.
    His friends and colleagues must be fed up of him.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So, we are now supposed to feel sorry for Kate McCann now? Sorry, missus, but you get fuck all sympathy from me and no doubt many others. I really couldn't care less about the parents' situation: mentally or physically. I care more about the kids and in particular the one who is "missing".

    The great trouble with the public is they believe mainstream media. Mainstream media controls the information you get. They tell you anything to manipulate you and to feed the information "they" want you to receive. The mainstream media are getting more desparate with "Swine Flu" and all sorts of crap fear-mongering nonsense.

    This McCann machine is running out of oil. I don't really believe in the "suicide" attempt and to be quite honest with you it wouldn't make a difference to my life if that hapened but I will tell you what will happen...

    One of that group will collapse. Kate McCann will split from her controlling husband and reveal what really happened because her sanity must surely be questioned now. The bit that scares me the most is Gerry McCann as State Health Secretary...when that day comes Great Britain is finished.

    People, you are really going to have to waken up. This stuff is absurd and really hard to take. Take a look at the documentary by Mr Amaral and then take a look at the McCanns' pathetic effort to convince the public they are just a normal happy family and we should all feel sorry for them.

    Amaral's documentary is based on facts and evidence; the McCanns' lame attempt is just that: a lame attempt.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kate McCann is too egocentric to commit suicide.

    She could not commit to answering the 40 questions
    She could not commit to returning for a reconstruction

    McCann's your time is almost up..................................

    ReplyDelete
  8. Paulo Sargento: "The McCanns’ advisor committed an unforgivable ‘gaffe’ during an interview to Sky News. When he is told that a certain criminologist defended that Maddie’s abduction had probably taken place in an unplanned manner, that Maddie had wandered out of the house looking for her parents and a paedophile had passed by at the time and took her, Mitchell says an interesting thing: ‘that didn’t happen, that’s ludicrous, Kate knows it, she knows that didn’t happen’. Now, what can we conclude from this?"


    Rewind. '[Kate] knows that didn't happen' could very well mean that Kate knows circumstances existed that would not have allowed the possibility of Madeleine wandering out of apartment 5A. And that would mean that the sliding door was not left open but was locked...which then would point to Matthew Oldfield's 9:30/9:35 check being a lie...or, worse, that the sliding door was left open but Madeleine was unable to walk. Why? Was she restrained? Dead?

    Like Mr Sargento, I think Cuddle Cat and the treatment of Cuddle Cat has sent many messages. Through Cuddle Cat, Kate was signalled that she was not convinced it could have been key in identifying the 'abductor'. So the abduction is a fallacy.

    Cuddle Cat was Kate's way of connecting with Madeleine, whether she was alive and missing or dead and irretrievable. Cuddle Cat, a CHILD'S TOY, smelled of cadaver yet Kate cannot publicly admit as A POSSIBILITY that the child is dead. This is not rational, it's from the Land of Make Believe.

    But Cuddle Cat was not Gerry's way of connecting with Madeleine. Not even a fleeting look in the direction of the favourite toy of his much loved daughter. He had already divorced himself from the loss and was forging on with his survival plan.

    But Cuddle Cat was no more than a prop for Kate. A prop to be shown in public to evoke sympathy for the mother of a lost child. But notice its pride of place, thrown into the cupboard under the sink at the villa. I think it's because Kate privately wanted to rid herself of those memories that took her back to Madeleine's last moments. They must be dreadful for her to want to forget them so. Not loving moments, but memories that fill you with dread and that you can only want to escape.

    And so she washes Cuddle Cat, losing Madeleine's scent, her touch, the spitty kisses with which she must have showered her favourite toy. Clean, all gone and sadly so do memories of the final days with Madeleine. So do you think Kate lives in hope for Madeleine's return? Not the bouncy, alive, giggly Madeleine we've seen in the photos and for whom you'd want to cling on to dear life.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is a very bad situation, and the portuguese media are taking a position, that is wrong.

    http://rebrand.blogs.sapo.pt/

    ReplyDelete
  10. Let us hope none of them will committ suicide. A life is a life, even if you make terrible mistakes.
    The twins need their parents.
    It is no use for Kate continuing hiding things.
    She will get worse and worse every day.
    Come forward, Kate, liberate yourself from too much suffering.
    We all know that Maddie is dead.
    At least call the police in Portimào or go to a Portuguese consulate in Britain, tell them where they can find the body.
    Think about your own health.
    It is not use to continue hiding her death.
    You can also go to a priest and show him on the map where the body can be found.Or to a friend.
    Or an anonymous letter to the Portuguese Embassy.
    Be corageous, be strong, people will admire you.
    Give Madeleine a grave, with flowers.
    She diserves it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I am glad that Kate is suffering...I only wish that tight lipped control freak Gerry was because he clearly doesnt and never has given a fuck.
    I feel no pity for them, so what Kate suffers, Madeleine suffered crying in a darkened room a few nights while they pissed it up...We dont know the exact mode of death, we do not know that Madeleine did not lay injured and frightened a while before she died...so NO I dont care and in fact hope that they suffer in holy hell for their dirty deeds...I would have had more sympathy if it was the same scenario and they werent jogging and smiling like film stars in the early days, they are percieved in the very light they themselves painted themselves.
    And while I am at it, did they give a fuck about Murat? NO! Did they care about Amaral losing his job? Hos family circumstance as they robbed him of his reputation and ultimately his career.NO.
    Any pity on these people is wasted.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Gerry becoming Secretary of State for Health?

    Oh dear, I am sure Gerry wants this job very much in deed.

    But dear Gerry forget it forever.
    Your chances to be a Very Important Person is gone. Finita la comedia.
    You are a Very Intolerant Person and never will achieve such a high
    position is really ZERO...NILL!
    You can keep your ambitions for free but your career is as dead as Madeleine.
    Tell tthe police where she is befor is to late.

    ReplyDelete
  13. My understanding is that it is very difficult to incriminate someone of child neglect in Portugal, because it would have to be proved that the caregivers knowingly neglected the child or children. If the child died accidentally in that apartment without any adult being present, wouldn't the McCann's influential and powerful friends step in anyways? In this situation wouldn't they arrange for the McCanns and their dead daughter to leave Portugal without consequences and then subsequently cover up the matter in England? Based on this reasoning I come to the conclusion that an adult was directly involved in Madeleine's death be it an accident or not and that the forensic analysis of the body would prove this, thus the need to conceal the body or destroy it.

    I really wonder who is the stronger of the two. I saw how calm and composed Kate looked when she walked out of the building where she was interrogated; Gerry on the other hand looked disoriented. I do think that Kate has some chronic psychological flaw. Too much emphasis is being put on Mrs. McCann’s appearance, she has always been thin. I think she is one of these women who think it is attractive to look emaciated. Another question I have is of the sort: is the dog wagging the tail or the tail wagging the dog? Are the McCanns putting themselves and the people behind them through all this or is someone in the background forcing the issue?

    The reason the snake oil salesman Mitchell objects to the theory of the child wandering about and then being taken, is because that would focus the attention of the British public on the parent's neglect. This theory would probably make it easier to accept the abduction theory, but Mr. Mitchell wants to have his cake and eat it too.

    I have an idea of what the McCann team is going to try to do next, but I'm going to keep my mouth shut in case I end up giving them ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What a horrible, cruel and inhumane post this is. Can the owners of this blog or the commentators get much lower? Oh I'm sure they can. What a pathetic shower of people you are. Sick!

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think you're all a bunch of heartless sickos - if this wasn't such a serious case, I would pity you all.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think our feelings whatever they are, have little to do with the whole point. Asking ourselves wether we should pity Kate McCann is just useless according to me and I fully agree with Amaral and Sargento's stance, who acknowledge the McCann's grief, and respect them, trying to understand the reasons why they acted the way they did, rather than saying how pityful or how wicked they are.

    I personnally can understand that they were frightened of the twins being taken away from them by social services who sometimes couldn't care less. On the other hand, I can't condone leaving children alone at night, and don't know which is worse in such case, to lock the apartment or not to lock it. To me, both are senseless, callous, and irresponsible. I also have some utterly negative feelings to their spin doctor, and al the media circus, money making, political lobbying etc.... Yet again, I think Amaral is right to try and understand what happened and to find the truth, rather than cultivating feelings of hatred which would impair his credibility as an investigator.

    Hating the McCanns or pitying them, admiring them or despising them, is the reverse of finding the truth, when knowing the truth is all that matters. Passionate, partisan claims will not help the cause of children either. Better than any argument, the fact that their child came to harm when she was left alone says it all. They can blame some nasty "abductor" with Mediterranean features, and get indignant that he is still at large, it is the duty of parents to see that their child is protected, from abductors, or from accidents.

    The sight of the McCann's pain doesn't bring comfort nor does it wipe out the wrong that has been done. I just want to know what happened to the child. It is the duty of society, and of the authorities, not to let a child disappear without knowing what her fate was.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dear Anno 01:20 & 07:56,
    Which is more sick, horrible, cruel, inhumane and heartless? To put "good time" on top
    of your priorities, and the children safety in a second place, kill your own child, conceal her body, request the public for money to search for your daughter, pay your house mortgage with those mony, hire private detectives and just want your own paid detectives to investigate the disapperance, and do not request the British authorities or police to search for your daughter...

    Shiva

    ReplyDelete
  18. Inhumane and cruel? Nah thats what child neglect is or worse still murde,the McCanns and their cronies were cruel to set Murat up to take the fall..they were callous as to the effect upon Amarals family as they painted him a drunken bumbling fool.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "The McCanns are 'forced' to seach for their daughter"

    Who is 'forcing' them. They themselves.

    Kate and Gerry seem to be prone to making mistakes, some very BIG MISTAKES:

    VERY BIG MISTAKE 1 - Neglecting their children, which in a way or another led to Madeleine's death.

    VERY BIG MISTAKE 2 - Trying to cover up Madeleine's death with a staged abduction.

    VERY BIG MISTAKE 3 - Escalating their lie and publicising it worldwide, walking all over anyone who does not go along with their fictional abduction version of events.

    This is what is 'forcing' them to carry on pretending they are searcing for their daughter in an attempt that the truth will not emerge. Sorry, Gerry and Kate, the truth has emerged and more and more people know about it!

    ReplyDelete
  20. To the anonymous who accuses other commentators of being sic / sickos

    You may wish to focus on facts rather than your feelings or interests. Have you seen the videos of the sniffer dogs identifying cadaver smell on Kates clothes, etc. Have you seen Kate's fingerprint on the window she opened herself. Have you seen the McCanns' recent desperate attempt to mix up Jane Tanner's 'abductor' with the Smiths' sighting of Gerry carrying Maddie's body. This is all available on the net. Just open your eyes to the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  21. It is quite possible that Kate is feeling remorse. Gerry does not know what that is!

    Gerry is the driving force behind the pretence. Remember, on the fatal night of 3rd May, Kate asked for a priest (last rites...). Then it all changed and the 'abduction' story started. Gerry's advice....

    ReplyDelete
  22. Guerra, I also have gotten an idea.
    But I will not tell it here either.
    It will happen still this year, I think.
    Wait and see.

    ReplyDelete
  23. A bunch of sick people are the people who hide a crime, people who allow the innocent Murat to be made arguido, people who ask for money for a fraudulent fund, people who tell lies about the Portuguese police, people who cause lack of tourism in Praia da Luz, people who make others lose their jobs,people who don't answer 48 questions,
    THOSE are the bunch of sick people, my fellow!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Monday 18th May 2009 Kate and Gerry McCann speak on GM.TV UK morning programme 10/30 am.

    subect - International Missing Chilren's Day.

    ReplyDelete
  25. To all those bleeding hearts who actually do care, I would like to say the following: If Mrs. McCann has attempted or contemplated killing herself, I doubt very much that it has anything to do with the loss of her daughter, more likely public opinion. Caring parents would respect the dignity of their child. How much money did they spend on PR firms? How much money did they spend on detectives and television shows in order to deceive the public? What I see is a couple who won't be satisfied until everyone on the planet is deceived. Life is a miracle no one wants to see anyone die. However, it's difficult to feel sympathy for deceitful people who have caused so much emotional and economic upheaval. Like "Speak your mind" said they had no qualms about incriminating innocent people and I suspect they will attempt to do so again.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hello from Rio de Janeiro!

    just to say to Gerry,Kate and their gang:
    - What Goes Around Comes Around -

    we are waiting for this day!

    wish my blogger-family a happy weekend!
    cheera,

    Maria

    ReplyDelete
  27. Do not forget:

    Gerry Mccann is a master of camouflage.

    He is able to sell one's own grandmother to reach his target.

    A fat lot he cares!
    Madeleine is gone and if Kate goes he can find another one nor slimmer, blonder, younger, clever,
    stronger and reproductive!
    Sad ,a very sad cold man!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous:"But Cuddle Cat was no more than a prop for Kate. A prop to be shown in public to evoke sympathy for the mother of a lost child. But notice its pride of place, thrown into the cupboard under the sink at the villa. I think it's because Kate privately wanted to rid herself of those memories that took her back to Madeleine's last moments. They must be dreadful for her to want to forget them so. Not loving moments, but memories that fill you with dread and that you can only want to escape."

    This makes sense. I didn't know it was on a shelf out of sight. If so, she couldn't bear to see it, or to throw it away. It's placement was hasty, too, remember.
    To say it is 'merely a prop' for her, detracts from its significance, though. It is, more generally, a symbol, and a connection Maddie. That is why the washing of it is also begs questions. I have heard all sorts of reasons put forward, but I confess, to me it appears significant, but it's meaning comes to me as 'hopelessness'. SHe couldn't leave it untouched. She couldn't keep it as fond memories. SHe tried to wash it of sin and guilt, a motive that is driven unconsciously.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Blame for this terrible show and outcome:

    'Forgive them, for they know not what they do'.
    We as bloggers, must show compassion, as undoubtedly the court of any land would do. What level in terms of sentencing is for the courts.
    The run away effects of media and need to maintain a lie are quite understandable, as our author here has put forward. So, really it makes no difference in the parents' culpability.

    The blame for this terrible show and outcome lies firmly with political interference, and it is at those figures who we must take our rage. It's an utter public disgrace to the public and institutions of more than one country, and towards these foolish parents.

    Bear in mind too, how many parents may be selfishly foolish, and not have to live with a dire outcome.

    We do not know for sure whether the children were drugged yet, though the suggestive probability is high. I'll point out that medical students continue to drug themselves even for exam performance, memory boosting, and sleep!

    These are/were young and vain doctors. None of them were particularly experienced, nor were they consultant surgeons. The were students with a license to practice. The probably had no truly personal convictions in so far as medicine and healing goes. They were auto-dispensers of medicine and advice. Drugging children very much fits in with the NHS (British medical system) ethos.

    The medical establishment is very often naive so far as drugs go, and our bodies are interfered with as mere machines to be controlled. That is, in so far as they place faith in modern developments in drugs, and its industry. Mature doctors, particularly consultant surgeons, may of generally know much better than seeing drugs as solutions to all our needs.

    Nonetheless, that is the way allopathic medicine steers our students, along with the government, where drugs are a solution to management problems, in disregard to the well-being of the patient.

    I have tried to show some understanding towards the parents here, not to say they are not blameworthy. But to point out, and I repeat here:
    The anger in our blame for this terrible show and outcome lies firmly with political interference.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Breaking news on Sky in UK - parents of Madeleine to sue Amaral. Hotting up !!

    ReplyDelete
  31. BREAKING NEWS ON SKY
    McCanns to sue Sr Amaral!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Further to my last post, on Sky it just says they are to sue and more news to follow, Jan

    ReplyDelete
  33. http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-of-free-expression/defamation/defences-to-a-claim-of-defamation.html

    Defences to a Claim of Defamation
    Justification (Truth)

    It is a complete defence to an action for defamation to prove that the defamatory statement is substantially true. It is not necessary for a defendant to show that there was a public interest in publication and it does not matter whether he or she acted maliciously.

    If relying on the defence of justification the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that the allegations made are true. The defendant must prove it on the balance of probabilities, that is, the allegation is more likely than not to be true.

    A defendant is not required to prove that every allegation is true. The Defamation Act 1952 provides that where the words complained of contain two or more distinct allegations a defence of justification can still succeed if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the claimant’s reputation having regard to the imputations which are proved true.

    A defendant cannot rely on the defence of justification in relation to the publication of the details of spent convictions, as defined by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, if the claimant can show that the publisher acted ‘maliciously’.

    An allegation published by repeating a rumour cannot be justified by proving that there was such a rumour. A defendant is required to prove the substance of the allegation.

    Since the burden of proving the truth of an allegation is on the defendant, claimants enjoy a distinct advantage in defamation claims. Justification has to be used with great care. It can often be difficult to obtain sufficient admissible evidence to persuade a jury that the statement is true. This will sometimes result in the media being unable to publish allegations which are generally believed to be true, but which they may not be able to prove to the standard required in court. Further, an unsuccessful defence of justification is likely to increase the level of any damages awarded.

    Fair Comment

    If a defendant can prove that the defamatory statement is an expression of opinion on a matter of public interest and not a statement of fact, he or she can rely on the defence of fair comment.

    The courts have said that whenever a matter is such as to affect people at large, so that they may be legitimately interested in, or concerned at, what is going on or what may happen to them or to others, then it is a matter of public interest on which everyone is entitled to make fair comment.

    The comment must be based on true facts which are either contained in the publication or are sufficiently referred to. It is for the defendant to prove that the underlying facts are true. If he or she is unable to do so, then the defence will fail. As with justification, the defendant does not to have to prove the truth of every fact provided the comment was fair in relation to those facts which are proved.

    Fair does not mean reasonable, but signifies the absence of malice. The views expressed can be exaggerated, obstinate or prejudiced, provided they are honestly held. If the claimant can show that the publication was made maliciously, the defence of fair comment will not succeed.

    Privilege

    If untrue defamatory allegations are published on an occasion of privilege, they will be protected from a claim for defamation. Although the law of defamation exists to protect reputations, it is recognised that in particular situations it is to the benefit of society generally for people to be able to communicate without the fear of being sued for defamation. This is so despite the risk that a person’s reputation will be damaged and they will not be able to restore it by bringing a claim for defamation.

    Absolute Privilege

    Absolute privilege provides a complete defence regardless of how malicious or untrue the allegation is. It applies to proceedings in Parliament or courts in England and Wales. The Defamation Act 1996 provides a statutory absolute privilege for contemporary or court-postponed fair and accurate reports of court proceedings in England and Wales, the European Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights and any international criminal tribunal established by the United Nations Security Council, or by an international agreement to which the United Kingdom is a party.

    ReplyDelete
  34. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Madeleine-McCanns-To-Sue-Portuguese-Detective-Goncalo-Amaral-For-Defamation/Article/200905315283156?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15283156_Madeleine%3A_McCanns_To_Sue_Portuguese_Detective_Goncalo_Amaral_For_Defamation

    ReplyDelete
  35. Will Amaral sue Clarence Mitchell and will the citizens of Portugal sue the McCanns for comments?

    ReplyDelete
  36. It's on the BBC and SKY NEWS :

    The McCanns are going to sue Gonçalo Amaral !

    If this is for real I hope their very expensive lawyers haven't found a way of doing this sideways, I mean, without the McCanns having to appear in court! Have no idea if this is feasable...for someone else to take action on their behalf. They are taking a big risk if they are forced to go to court...or are they expecting for Mr. Amaral to back down and settle out of court, like the Express group did? And if they indeed do sue, will it be judged in England or Portugal?
    Things will be ectic in the next days...let's see what comes of this...

    ReplyDelete
  37. Breaking News in UK

    McCann's to sue Goncalo Amaral!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Será que a trama é muito maior do que se pensa? A dos mcsAmantesdeeuros?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Amaral is not afraid of it!

    now we will know what he keeps as secrets.

    Gerry do not wake up this dog.

    You will live to rue it.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The McCanns to sue Dr Amaral - let's see Gerry and Kate in court answering questions they have evaded up to now. The matter with Amaral is not silencing someone like the newspapers and getting more money out of it. That's what the McCanns have been doing up to now. With Amaral it will be quite different!

    ReplyDelete
  41. (Guerra) "The reason the snake oil salesman Mitchell objects to the theory of the child wandering about and then being taken, is because that would focus the attention of the British public on the parent's neglect. This theory would probably make it easier to accept the abduction theory, but Mr. Mitchell wants to have his cake and eat it too."
    On that topic, Kate has to be consistent with her open window story and logically objects that M. would never have been capable to open the window... a fact she's been recently insisting on in spite of GA's conclusions.
    Why ?
    Do they realize that bereavement will never be possible with GA telling around the truth of their lies ? The only way to an acceptable end would be Madeleine's body discovery. Is it why new ex-policemen were committed?

    ReplyDelete