6 May 2009

McCanns on Oprah - Two opinions from today's Portuguese press

The Maddie case

by Domingos Amaral

On Monday night, I watched the interview that the McCann couple gave to Oprah, which was broadcast by SIC. Two years after their daughter’s disappearance, the couple continues its emotional crusade for abduction. Oprah did render them an excellent service, dropping a friendly tear, here and there. But she didn’t ask them some of the questions that were justified.

She didn’t ask Kate how she could leave her twins in a bedroom where her daughter had been “abducted” from, a bedroom with an open window, and left to call her friends that were more than one hundred metres away!

She didn’t ask them why they didn’t contact the police immediately, having taken more than one and a half hours to do so, despite the fact that a friend of the couple said that she had seen a man carrying a child just minutes earlier! She didn’t ask them what they think of the Irish family that saw Maddie’s father carrying a child that resembled her, at the same time when she was supposedly “abducted”! And, finally, she didn’t ask them if they are friends of the English prime minister, Gordon Brown, and if he intervened directly in the case.

Therefore, it was easy for the McCann couple to transmit their image, an image of suffering but always committed to the miracle of their daughter’s reappearance. Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s possible. I remain, since the first moments, included in the group of those who strongly suspect the parents, and who are convinced that they know that the child died inside the apartment.

I didn’t generate this conviction lightly. I have read everything about the case, and I continue to fail in understanding how the Public Ministry decided to archive the case, despite so many indications pointing towards the McCann couple’s guilt. It’s regrettable that certain characters who may have helped the McCanns were not investigated, like the Anglican priest in Praia da Luz, Haynes Hubbard, and his wife Susan.

I sincerely believe that as Gerry McCann is a personal friend of the English prime minister, Gordon Brown, the latter used his power to help the couple and to place the PJ in a difficult position. There is no doubt that this was a political archiving, for the Portuguese Government to avoid a relationship crisis with the English Government. Once more, reviving a terrible historic habit, we bowed before the English. It is regrettable that it was so, and that with so many indications against them, the McCanns give interviews to Oprah instead of being tried in a Portuguese Court.

source: Correio da Manhã, 06.05.2009



Why does the PJ let someone speak for them?

by Isabel Stilwell

Yesterday in the early hours I saw, on SIC, the interview that Oprah did with the McCann couple. I felt that by doing that broadcast, that television station was, for the first time in a long time, rebalancing the scales.

Over the last few months, part of the media seems to be completely conditioned by the theory that the parents murdered their daughter and simulated an abduction, no matter how absurd that is. Apart from a complete lack of evidence, what would lead someone who, according to this theory, committed the perfect crime, to keep calling attention upon themselves?

Even presuming that they are people without scruples, compulsive liars and other epithets that they have been called, without those who accuse them being able to sustain the accusations, we have to agree that even for criminals that would be taking things too far.

But beyond the anguish that any mother or father feels just by imagining themselves in a similar situation, that which continues to cause me the most perplexity is why so many people seem to prefer to believe that the parents are guilty, the most sick possibility of them all, especially after the most expensive investigation that was ever made in Portugal failed to point anything whatsoever against any of them, even forcing to lift the arguido status and to archive the case?

And no, please don’t mention again the serious mistake of leaving the children alone, which they have punished themselves over and over again, because it doesn’t equal making someone into a murderer, and certainly doesn’t deserve this kind of punishment.

There are only two explanations. The first one comes from sociologists and is called the Fair World Syndrome, which results from us finding it unbearable to believe that bad things can happen to good people. In other words, we prefer to abandon the victim, in the belief that she got what she deserved. Which means that us, who don’t leave our children alone, can sleep in peace and not think about it any further.

The second one is related to the role that former PJ investigator Gonçalo Amaral has been playing. It sincerely shocks me that both the Republic’s prosecutor and the PJ director keep their silence, while a former officer, who was removed from the case, makes absolute accusations, almost as if he was the Portuguese police’s spokesman.

Why and until when?


source: Destak, 06.05.2009

9 comments:

  1. Falta de evidência?!Cada vez me convenço mais de que a Isabel Stilwell ou não conhece minimamente investigação da polícia e todas as questões políticas e diplomática que a condicionaram ou então finge que não sabe porque, vá-se lá saber porquê,é-lhe conveniente.Quem lê as crónicas desta senhora nunca esperaria que se posicionasse ao lado deste casal.Fiquei estupefacta ao ler a primeira crónica escrita por ela onde criticava e quase gozava com os empregados do aldeamento que foram despedidos e fico atónita ao ver que continua a defender o casal e a criticar o Gonçalo Amaral.Se calhar seria interessante investigar as ligações entre a familía Stilwell e a família Mccann....

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The first one comes from sociologists and is called the Fair World Syndrome, which results from us finding it unbearable to believe that bad things can happen to good people. In other words, we prefer to abandon the victim, in the belief that she got what she deserved. Which means that us, who don’t leave our children alone, can sleep in peace and not think about it any further."

    utter utter bullshit... we are all grown ups here. We all know & accept bad things happen. Plenty of people, myself included, have suffered their own family tragedies. Human nature is random.

    And that is certainly not the reason that people doubt the McCann's story.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great article and so true..Isabel.

    Tanner, 9 members of the Smith family and 2 owners of a restaurant, people that do not know each other, claim they have seen the person that took Madeleine and still the parents are accused of committing the perfect crime, according to the disqualified Goncales Amaral who should never be a cop as he doesn't deserve to be one.

    If the perfect crime was committed that night...then why didn't Amaral investigate it and PROOF his case.

    This is so out of proportion...

    ReplyDelete
  4. In Correio da Manhã, Domingos Amarel sums it up in one succinct phrase:-

    "......the couple continues its emotional crusade for abduction."


    Meanwhile, Isabel Stilwell asks at the end of her McSycophantic piece in Destak:-

    "Why and until when?"

    Until the truth is told and justice is served, would be my succinct summing-up.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Coitadita....é uma triste apenas convencida a Belocas e não ponho à bem o nome porque era o de Minha Mãe.Não quero misturas.
    a menina é 1 enjoo,sabe? quando a oiço falar com o psi na rádio apenas fico o tempo necessário para a meliçe de tontice de fala.Há que mudar de estação bem depressa,porque aquele tom enjoa e a cabecinha muito mais.

    Talvez tenha ela pedido a 1 amiga,sabe? para comentar aqui ou então até foi a menina.....ou o psi amigo......grande artigo o quê?

    mcr

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bravo Domingos Amaral and boooh Isabel Stilwell!

    Domingos, very lucid and well informed, poor dear Isabel, so delusional and ignorant...one can only give her some slack...she's partly english and a catholic, she feels the Mccanns grievances as her own. Nevertheless it is a bit too much he insistence in defending that disgusting pair of child neglectors, taking into account that she's a mother and used to write articles in a magazine specialized in child care issues ( not sure, but i belkieve it was "Pais e Filhos")!!!


    Rosie

    ReplyDelete
  7. ANON@11:46

    The sightings of a man carrying a child are not necessarily the proof that there was undoubtdely an abductor! Did it cross your mind at all that the man could be :
    a)- Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine away;
    b)- Someone else( still unknown to us) doing it on behalf of the McCanns;


    "If the perfect crime was committed that night...then why didn't Amaral investigate it and PROOF his case."

    WHY INDEED, ANON.???!!! Maybe you shoul ask the british...Gordon Brown, the british consul, the leicester police, the portuguese public ministery,...in so many ways they all hindered the investigation and made everything in their power to stop Mr. Amaral from following his line of investigation! We all know that! YOU KNOW THAT!(but are conveniently pretending you don't)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Glad to see some fairness at last on this blog. There is hope yet it seems.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The reason why the officials's in office don't make statements, is more or less answered by the question, why was the case archived? - because the process was interfered with politically and internationally. So only the retired officer is free to make his opinions known.

    The first 'fair world syndrome' reason you give, applies equally to your own refusal to consider any evidence whatsoever against the McCann's. Which is the job of the police, and for which they should not be criticised.
    YOu say in defence that the couple, if they were criminal, would not adopt a public profile. But that profile was adopted early on, whilst they were being investigated by the police. They would feel the need to keep it up in some respects, or change tack. Wouldn't any criminal stick to their guise? I can't imagine them suddenly changing, that would draw more attention. Unless it was to say we give up. We believe she is dead. But as 'innocents' they wouldn't know if Maddie is dead or not. They'd have to turn to clairvoyancy.
    Your reasoning is a refutation, but it doesn't actually hold.

    ReplyDelete