11 Jan 2008

HAVE A LISTEN TO CLARIS !!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb6M0lwg1Q4


Hear him slip up and say left the children and change it.... "Favourite" newspaper the Daily Express...distorts and exaggerates...Claim their system of checks was better than the baby listening service that was on offer - there was no baby listening service- this is a myth that has repeatedly been argued by the forum monkeys/relatives on the Daily Express so we see this lie comes right from the top! Lastly hear him ask for those donations in envelopes to Kate and Gerry. Overall he sounds hostile, aggressive and very defensive. If this was not such a serious subject you would think this interview was off a comedy sketch with the Brummy man from ~The ~Sun!


Viv x

39 comments:

lizzy said...

Viv,
Even now they are trying to justify the leaving alone 3 young toddlers it is unbelievable, those children shouldn't have been left alone full stop, and as for the donations in brown envelopes Clarence has clearly lost it.Funnily enough my mum who is 80 said when the Fund was first set up, why are 2 dr's asking the public for money when one of their salaries will be higher than most people's. Money seem to be what its all about with them though.

docmac said...

Hi Lizzy.
I'm trying to have a fairly McCann free day. So I'll just congratulate Everton Academy U18 for hanging on to draw with LFC U18 3-3 after being 3-1 up ;-)

Best wishes

ratonthebeam said...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BtSJNpE-gJY - also worth a look!

felicity said...

Hiya Lizzy, Doc and Rat

I agree the continuing attempts to justify leaving the children would be better left unsaid! It only annoys people even more. Plus your old mum is right. I live in a terraced house and have never enjoyed their sort of income - why should we be sending them money when they already had 1.2M they just frittered away. It is not money they need it is prison! They are just marketing and selling their daughter and it s repulsive.

Good on you doc for having a Mc~Cann free day - we all need to do that sometimes - we have personally given a lot of ourselves and it is distressing. There is nothing we can do to bring Maddie back and justice is now slowly taking its course. I would rather then PJ took their time and got every detail against them right to make sure they get what they deserve. It is hard to continue feeling sympathy with Kate McCann when she does not do the decent thing and go to the police to stop this lengthy and expensive charade.

Thanks for the further link Rat

Love to you all
Viv xxxx

lizzy said...

Hi Docmac,
Tyical of Everton to have a lead and end up drawing.
Still we have a good signing with Fernandez,hopefully all will be complete in order for him to play in the Chelsea game at Goodison in a fortnight.Btw have just read Steven Gerrards autobiography, interesting read. One of my brothers is a red unfortunately and gave it to me.

lmcg said...

I can't believe the smear campaign is still in full swing. The DE is now reporting that some poor groom is in the spotlight for abducting Maddie. It is truely unbelievable, is there noone who is unsafe against this couple's accusations?

ratonthebeam said...

Read the Mail. There is supposed to be a body at the bottom of a lake some 20km from PDL. According to Retardo-3, anyway. I won't repeat the accusations here but they are pretty gruesome.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=507782&in_page_id=1770

Some of us think the explanations are being prepared by Team McCann right now in case the PJ do drain that lake....

Anonymous said...

Anyone have any theories as to why a certain Tapas 2 would be that complicit in a cover up.

If the 2 was that heavily involved, surely there must be something major that ties the four together.

Ironside said...

Hi Alsabella....This lake in todays news ..is it the same one PJ have already checked...just thinking if Tapas 1 has broken ranks..he could maybe have done a plea bargain.to say where maddies remains are....Gerry pre-empts yet again...by mentioning this lake...a rape would surley be impossible to detect now...after all this time in the water...
Broken bones and fractures now thats another matter...

Morning anon....Yes this couple are very close are they not....I find it odd that madeleine and JTs daughter were born within two months of each other...could madeleine have been premature...she was very small for her age....JT being at the birth of madeleine...I also find odd...usually its the father...Possibly Madeleine and JTs daughter are from the same donor.....This relationship between the four is most odd to say the least....keep thinking of kates " we were so into each other"

Anonymous said...

Wasn't Madeleine born in Amsterdam?
and JT reportedly with her at the birth? all rather strange.

Interesting article re film

http://comment-independent.co.uk/columnist/janet_street_porter/article3324416.ece

hope4truth said...

Hello Rat

It seems they are now in a very desprate situation an are trying to discredit the PJ again by talking about the lake.

I am not naive and know that if Madeleine was abducted all kinds of unthinkable things may have happend to her but to use the words that have been used must be so distressing to the family.

If they are sure this is where she is I guess the fund will now be donated to help other missing children?

ratonthebeam said...

Hiya Hope and All

I can't help feeling so, so sorry for the grandparents, who seem like decent people, having to read such horrid things in the Daily Mail. It must be very distressing to them to read all the speculation on what might have become of their granddaughter.

But then Clarence has influence with the press, so why does he permit them to print it? Is it not "hurtful and unhelpful"? In fact all he has to say about it is that it is "interesting", and that...

"The lawyer concerned has acted appropriately by making contact with the authorities and our investigators and clearly the matter is now in their hands."

He's not much of a PR guru IMHO. But I think you all knew that anyway.

felicity said...

Hi All

I dont know about you but I am just about fed up of listening to Claris! Funny how these scurrilous stories about the so-called abductor always originate in the Daily Mail. They have been non-stop since we heard for definite the PJ are coming back to interview them. The latest report is particularly gory and quite appalling. AS this information has come via the Retardos then clearly the parents and Claris have sanctioned it being given to the Mail. Again, I would ask the simple question - IS THIS WHAT NORMAL PARENTS WOULD DO?

Strange how the PJ were reported some time ago to be searching lakes having got the information from mobile phone triangulation of the movements of the Tapas crew. I agree it is possible that this is where Maddie is and Claris is releasing this vile information as a pre-emptive strike prior to the body being recovered. Clearly any rape could not be detected now but as Ironside says fractures could be.

Or is the case that tomorrow some other so called suspect will be hounded? Yesterday it was the gardener ..this fare is definitely not funny.

Viv x

ratonthebeam said...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/14/nmaddy114.xml

The reservoir story is 3 months old anyway. It was in the Telegraph last October.

Maybe the PJ did find something there and didn't release the findings yet.... they are supposed to have one piece of incontrivertible standalone evidence...

lizzy said...

Hi Viv,
I thik all these so called reservations are leaks by Team Mccann to divert attention from themselves, they are desperate for someone else to take the rap tried Murat not worked so now its on to the next attempt, pretty sad really , they are so transparent.I was disfursted to read Fiona's comment in the Daily Mirror she can't understand why somebody evidently wrote in to her saying they quite liked her til she suported the Mccanns, she said re film deals etc, wouldn't any normal parent do these things to get their daughter back, she is clearly stupid ...am baffled as to why people continue to support them.

Dylan05 said...

Hiya all,

Also had a McCann free day yesterday.
Viv - re your ankles, I hope you get all you can from them. It's really unfair of the government and wealthy companies to take advantage of their employees. I lost a baby (well an "embryo") back in Feb 06. As well as being distressing, I also got post -natal depression and couldn't function at work at all. I went through all of the proper channels with my bosses and took counseling but still went off sick every few weeks when I really couldn't cope. At the time, my youngest daughter kept comming down with croup which can be an horrific experience when it's bad. I've had to call an ambulance for her twice now but she's not had a recurrence since she's had her adenoids out. Anyway, I had to take time out of my own holiday for her and coupled with the sick leave of my own the company stitched me up. Never forgotten it & won't insure with Norwich Union on pain of death! They took all of my leave away and asked ME to pay back 3 days of work for the last few days I took during my resignation period. I went to a hearing with them and my union rep who said it was one of the worst cases of negligence he'd ever seen and also took it to my solicitor as a case of (can't remember the term but it's when they force you to resign without actually sacking you!) the solicitor said that they had me in a tight spot over a loophole and that it would cost me a lot of money and probably end up in a loss if I pursued it - bastards!
It was a blatant case of discrimination and I've known people working for the same company who have taken months off with depression. Ah well...

If a legal beagle such as yourself can't get compensation it really is worrying for everyone. It just makes you wonder, who is this "cotton wool" state trying to protect? Obviously not the minions and clearly the middle classes such as the McSpams.

Doc - I really hope you are feeling better now. If it weren't for the fact you were ill I would wish i were in your shoes with 33C temperatures. It's brass monkeys here!

Re stories in the news today, how can Mr Groom resemble the sightings when a) JT didn't see a face but presumed from the Med because of the clothing contradictory statement and b) the Irishman said he looked Mediterranean in origin? I've seen his pic, he doesn't look very olive skinned to me and the clothing that has been cited as typical for bundleman, is so vague that "brownish, beige" etc., etc., could apply to any man, from any continent. Maybe the poor gardener preferred the beige hues just as about a billion other men on the planet do, so of course, he must have been bundleman! Also he has short hair so he must have had his long locks chopped since May 3, surely that must mean he MUST be guilty??!! Good grief!

Can anyone dispel the horrible, horrible rape story that has appeared today? It's really upsetting. I have read the posts above but do we have any definitive, can't be the case evidence? I read on HYS this morning, it may have been rat, that rape of a minor is classed as sexual abuse and not rape. If it has come from M3 then, thankfully, it can be regarded as utter tripe but I couldn't see where it had been reported as comming from them. I really hope it's not true. I can't bring myself to think of that scenario at all. If it DID come from m3 and the news is old, then it must be rubbish as they said before xmas: "we are sure we know where she [Madeleine] is and she will be home for Christmas". Something that is nagging though is that soemone, maybe our dear Alsabella? had seen that they had said "we are sure we know where the killer is". Did that ever get clarified?

GTG now. Hope you are all well.

Dilly dawg x

dolores said...

http://tinyurl.com/ytrnw6
Hi Viv,
Thought this might be of interest,
G's first interview in Scotland Aug., 24th.It looks like he is behind the marketing.See what you think of it.

How many more innocent people are they going to fit up to take the guilt away from them. I think more and more people have got their number.He claims it's hurtful about M's look alike,compared to what they have released today how can they be so hypocritical
.
CM.talking on the movie, just 2 days said he ''would not speculate on whether G&K would play themselves in the movie or whether their roles would be played by celebrity actors'' CM said,''while it may be hugely entertaining and a bit of fun to think of cast lists,we are a million miles away from that sort of thing''

It's disgusting that they think of Madeleine's demise as entertaining and fun.They seem to be extremely carried away with all this media attention, and certainly lapping it up.They make me ill.
xxx

Dylan05 said...

Dolores, I wholeheartedly agree.

I didn't hear of CMs comment but "Hugely entertaining and a bit of fun" ? Disgusting. "A million miles from that sort of thing" I should bloody well think so too! What does he mean by "that sort of thing"? Does he mean sensationalism? Isn't that what these horrible people did from day 1? Sensationalise they did, against all opposing advice. There was a line in in Jurassic Park, it went something like..."You didn't stop to think of the consequences, before you slapped it on a lunchbox" (re marketing). I doubt disney world could have done a better marketing job! IMO, I would have thought that IF M had been kidnapped, the last thing any abductor would have wanted was for a high profile, celebrity child as they made her, on their hands and unfortunately, I'm afraid that that would have lead to her demise.

If it were me, and I were innocent, I would have stayed in Portugal, looked for her tirelessly and cooperated with the police.

They make me ill too - well said.

Dilly x

eureka said...

Hi Viv, I would think that the so called anonymous tipoff from the 'underworld' that the child is in a lake comes under the heading of 'hearsay'. Evidence is only as credible as it's source, and as the source is unknown or criminal then without corroberation it is just a worthless distraction, passed to a solicitor to give it appear to have some credibility. Smoke and mirrors again.

enough! said...

Sorry Clary but while I am very sorry about what happened to that little girl, I can think of hundreds of causes to which I would rather give my brown money envelopes than to an already well off pair who are supported by millionaires and who are seemingly throwing the money away on useless detectives, spokespeople, media spin...I just feel sorry for the people who have gone through similar situations and have had no help at all. Spare a thought for them.

lmcg said...

THE POLICE FORCE SEEKS THE ANONYMOUS AUTHOR OF EMAIL
12.01.08, 7:23pm

In the inquiry of the disappearance of MADELEINE MCCANN, the revelation that the PJ would have questioned a British gardner, Dan Groon, after having received an anonymous email throwing suspicion regarding this man who would have a likeness with one of photofits described by Jane Tanner, did not surprise the investigators.

"We have received thousands of emails with accusations, of anonymous information, of predictions by mediums, clairvoyants, etc ", confirms one source of PJ in the Algarve, adding that he "is not surprised that this information is disclosed in the British media, because the objective of the email is more than suspect ".


The PJ, since the beginning of the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on the 3rd of May 2007, have had to deal with a large amount of false information:" Although some originate from people who have contacted us in a genuine attempt to help search for the little girl, others are clearly aiming at altering the course of the investigation" states the same person in charge, confirming that " the origin of certain emails is being checked and that, in certain cases, the authors will be investigated".(...)

Duarte levy, sos Maddie

Hello, the above was posted by Curious a short time ago. Do you think this means the PJ suspects the McCanns and their associates are sending these emails as we have long suspected?

felicity said...

Hiya all - what very interesting posts again!

RAT - as you say the reservoir story is old news - this is what the Retardos seem to be doing just checking old leads where the PJ have been months previously. It is really unthinkable that this so called bunch of "fraud specialists" could do better than a professional police force with specialist detectives. We have seen them in handcuffs - they are a disreputable and dishonest bunch who will say and so anything for £50K per month..

It would be good news if the PJ did (or have) locate(d) her body in this area though..Given this appalling story now released by the increasingly desperate Claris it really does make you wonder. I have noticed how angry and aggressive Claris gets when seeking to defend the McCanns - this is very odd - hardly the behaviour of a detached professional with a firm belief in the innocence of his clients. He really does seem just as bent as them and so many times he says "we" closely involving himself in their ambitious schemes.

Lizzy: I am sure you are right - what we see are no more than sickening attempts at diversion - and it is clear that CM's leaks to the DM do not have the desired effect - comments are consistenly 90-95% hostile - a PR disaster! They would do far better by just shutting up but CM is convinced he knows best!

Dylan: I am so sorry to hear about you losing your baby and your job. I think what you are referring to is constructive dismissal. I am very lucky to have had the skills to pursue my own case. I am sure many firms of solicitors would have said it was too difficult to win and would be prohibitively expensive. I sued my employers on four separate occasions - three were consolidated and I have won those. They have now said they do not want to fight the final constructive dismissal case - they want to try and negotiate a settlement with me. If we cannot achieve this in Feb the fourth case will go ahead but they have lost before they start - I arranged it this way! As they did discriminate against me I was entitled to leave - discriminatiion is very good grounds for constructive dismissal.

I am sorry I could not help you with your case! My employers were so smug - they thought that with a team of solicitors and a barrister they just could not lose no matter how bad they treated me - now they have a judgment almost 200 pages long telling them they were wrong about that! I am a seasoned litigator and they picked on the wrong one! I would rather not have had the problems with my ankles and still have my job though than what I have been through but when I get the compensation it will help me feel a bit better!

Luv Viv x

felicity said...

Hiya Dolores

Thanks for the link to the video of Gerry - he confirms on two occasions they wanted to "affect the outcome of the investigation". To me this can only mean one thing - as he has let slip previously he wants a good outcome for him and Kate - clearly by seeking to impose upon everyone the view that Madeleine was abducted. I also found it interesting the way he said that it was actually helpful there were so many conflicting stories in the press. Again I feel this has been deliberate policy on their behalf to try and make the public so confused that as he says "people dont know what to believe". I dont think he reckoned on people like us who would look at all the reports coming out with a dispassionate eye and sort out all the dross. This becomes increasingly easy to do as we spot their hopeless strategies so easily.

Luv Viv x

felicity said...

LMCG

I like your post the police are investigating the source of these emails!

I can remember reading a post by the delightful Rosie some time back where she was saying that if she wanted to write an email that could not be traced back to her she would use an internet cafe. Clearly has the ability to think like a criminal. I immediately thought of a case I had read about a new barrister who wanted to win a divorce case against a father. So he went to an internet cafe and anonymously emailed the father with details of a new legal case for him to use. Of course there was no such legal case and when the father used it in court the barrister promptly stood up and started accusing him of perverting the course of justice! The father was furious and knew he had been set up - did some research and managed to get the barrister on video going into the internet who had a record of him sending the email. The barrister got sent down!

So Rosie, if this is what you and chums are doing watch out - it can still be traced back to you!!

I understand even interpol are investigating these so called sightings etc - and wonder just how much criminal behaviour will eventually be unearthed!

Kind Regards
Viv x

felicity said...

HERE IS THE PROPER STORY TOLD A LITTLE BETTER IN THE TIMES! VIV X
TimesSeptember 20, 2007

Barrister jailed for trying to frame man with fake e-mailSimon de Bruxelles
A TV and radio producer who retrained as a barrister became the first member of his profession yesterday to be jailed for perverting the course of justice.

Bruce Hyman, who was inspired to take up law while producing the Radio 4 legal programme Unreliable Evidence, fabricated evidence that could have led to an innocent man being jailed.

Bristol Crown Court heard that Hyman invented a fictitious legal precedent which he e-mailed to a father fighting for custody of his child. He sent the e-mail with a note of support from the pressure group Families Need Fathers. When the man quoted the precedent in court in support of his case, Hyman, who was representing his ex-wife, leapt to his feet and denounced it as a forgery.

The distraught father, Simon Eades, a Wall Street banker, was warned that he faced jail and the loss of his child if the precedent turned out to be fabricated. Dr Eades turned detective. He found that the e-mail had been sent from an internet shop in Tottenham Court Road. The owner e-mailed him the images from the shop’s CCTV camera, which revealed the sender to be Hyman.

Michael Meeke, QC, prosecuting, said that if Dr Eades had not been so computer literate and able to find the origin of the e-mail, he may well have been prosecuted. Hyman’s lawyer, Paul Dunkels, said his client had been depressed after being rejected for a permanent post at his London chambers in 2005 and had turned to drugs and alcohol that clouded his judgment.

Judge Tom Crowther told Hyman that a 12-month jail term was the minimum he could impose. He also ordered him to pay £3,000 compensation to Mr Eades and £3,457 costs.

Family and friends of Hyman, including the actress Maureen Lipman, heard a psychiatrist say that he was at risk of suicide if he was sent to prison.



Have your say

Given that this is the first time a barrister has been caught doing this since the profession emerged in its present sate in the 17th century we will only have to wait another 200 years or so for a repeat.

By then the profession may not exist but I am sure by then it will be capable of being dealt with by a fixed penalty notice at the police (or equivalent) station.

Bill, London,

It seems to me, from the other comments above, that we are living in a society increasingly obsessed with whether sentences are too lenient or otherwise. I do not want to come across as defending what Mr Hyman did, on the contrary I also find it apalling that he abused his position of trust in such a manner. No doubt he has been barred from practising the law. On the other hand what do people want to see, blood being drained from his veins?

He's been sentenced to 12 months as it is the maximum sentence the Crown Court could have imposed for his crime. I expect if the prosecution had not been happy with that, they would have appealed.

Let the man serve his sentence, pay his costs; the stigma attached to this crime is one which he will have to live with for the rest of his life. That is the heaviest sentence.

LMcg said...

Has someone tripped themselves up or am I missing something?


LIBRARISING
12.01.08, 9:24pm

Hey Libra nice to see you again tonight, you ok?
xx

• Posted by: librarising • Report Comment

lmcg said...

Sorry Viv, ignore that I've got it now. He was talking to himself!! x

lmcg said...

That was very interesting Viv, thank you. I hadn't heard that before and if in that case Dr Eades managed to produce the evidence to clear himself, you wouldn't have much hope of hiding behind your pc if the experts were after you!

I remember Rosie saying that, it made me think it was maybe something she had done or had thought of doing. It has been obvious for some time that someone involved with the McCann's has been sending these emails. Wasn't there one sent to Clarence House about a maid and revenge or something equally ridiculous.

I have an interesting link for you, again it is something you might have read but it is relevant to the Jane Hill interview I forwarded to your site yesterday. I will have to post it separately as I haven't copied it yet and will lose what I have written if I come out of here now to get it! x

lmcg said...

Here it is.


http://forums.mirror.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=35980&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

LIZZY said...

Hi Viv,
I found an interesting post on the Mirror forum which I have posted on the De and did remember to credit the author this time so hopefully will not be deleted, you may have already seen this but thought it interesting re Esther Mc Evoy Kate's friend. Here it is ;;;; Esther McVey, having resigned as a director of the Fund, appears to have wiped traces of her support of the McCanns and the campaign to find Madeleine from her Blog.

I thought that it was odd that her blog didn't mention Madeleine at all, considering her involvement but a search on archive.org has turned up something very interesting .... on Esther's blog for May 2007 (http://esther2009.wordpress.com/2007/05) there's no mention of Madeleine but in the same page archived at http://web.archive.org/web/200.....mcvey.com/ there's a blog post about Madeline.

Trying the original http://esther2009.wordpress.co.....madeleine/ gives a 'page removed' message.

If you scroll down the achived page, you'll see the "Sevens and more Sevens" post made on May 7, 2007 and it still appears on her blog today so obviously the Madeleine post has been selectively deleted.

Obviously Esther is finally seen the light, while she isn't talking, her blog actions speak louder that her silence!

NORNIRON - MIRROR FORUM

margaret said...

A lot more probable than any involvement on the part of the parents- I am prepared to stick my neck out: The McCanns are completely innocent and the Portuguese Police have made lots of mistakes- the biggest being the declaration of the parents as suspects.

Debbie said...

Re Reservoir story:
Why don't people read the news stories properly? It isn't more "spin" by Metodo 3 - a human rights lawyer was contacted THREE DAYS AFTER Maddie disappeared by an underworld criminal but despite him reporting it to the police his claim was not followed up. Thank God Metodo 3 ARE investigating. And it would be nice to see some members of the public giving the McCanns support instead of constantly berating their efforts to seek the truth. If people have nothing good to say - then shut up!

felicity said...

Hiya LMCG

When I read the three posts of Libra that were together on the page it made me really laugh - he obviously has a great sense of humour and makes a neat job of mocking the pro-Mucks with their stupid small talk etc!

Luv Viv x

lmcg said...

I was very slow on the uptake there. Once I realised what he was doing it made me laugh too. I think Leigh was the only one to pick up what he was going though - very funny, needed amongst many of those pointless posts! x

felicity said...

Hiya LMCG ROFL - he (libra on the DE) also clearly implies they answer themselves using multiple identities! I have known Rosiepops have a lengthy rant with herself about me at 2 am on a number of occasions - the pseudonym would be gentlebreeze, christobel (Crito) or maureen (Maudlin7) who would just be rather more outrageous and offensive than she was - she can spare her pseudonyms but as she says does not want to lose her profile and post count - she is actually proud of the repetitive rubbish she writes day in day out...takes all sorts LOL



I think that post you linked me to on the Mirror was so brill I am posting it here. I agree Kate clearly does seek to disassociate herself from what actually happened -she is not prepared to take any responsibility - because Gerry did it and all the plans and schemes are his - note the recent report she is very reticent about films etc but he is full of it! Go back to hell Gerry....(!)

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:12 pm Post subject: Kate McCanns Interviews

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really gets you thinking..what a brilliant site the McCanns files is



Kate's Interviews


A detailed look at Kate's interviews showing how she reacts to questions that probe the events surrounding Madeleine's disappearance.

Kate's displacement from the events of Madeleine's disappearance
First of all, it should be noted that transcribing what Kate actually says in her interviews is surprisingly difficult. Through observation of her talking on videos, she appears calm, articulate and in control.

However, when you begin to transcribe what she has actually said, it quickly becomes apparent how she intersperses her words with lots of pauses, 'errms', nervous giggles/laughs, half constructed words and noises - which may be the start of unfinished words or just pausing sounds. The tempo of her speach is also erratic and she alternates between short bursts of extremely fast speach, when she feels under pressure, and long, drawn out passges that are slow and almost become a drawl.

Although she presents a calm and controlled exterior to the world, her erratic and confusing spoken word would appear to suggest that she conceals different emotions beneath her placid surface.


The first interview with Jane Hill from the BBC - 25 May 2007


This interview is interesting as it is the first interview given by the McCanns after the disappearance of Madeleine. They had previously only given short, scripted statements.

Perhaps the most revealing question in the interview is this one:

Jane Hill: "I met people who didn't go to work for more than a week because everyday they were down on the beach, searching the streets. Did you, as a mother Kate, just sometimes think 'I've got to go and be out there with them. I want to go and just physically look as well."

Kate: (Pause) I mean, I did. Errm... (Long Pause) Errm, we'd been working really hard really. Apart... I mean, the first 48 hours, as Gerry said, are incredibly difficult and we were almost non-functioning, I'd say, errm, but after that you get strength from somewhere. We've certainly had loads of support and that's given us strength and its been able to make us focus really so we have actually, in our own way, it might not be physically searching but we've been working really hard and doing absolutely everything we can really to get Madeleine back."

What is significant in Kate's answer here?

Four things: Kate's displacement from the event, her inability to express what 'she' actually felt, an apparent, almost desperate, desire to promote a 'united' front and a reluctance to commit an answer to the question.

It is significant that she says "the first 48 hours, as Gerry said, are incredibly difficult". Her use of the word 'are' instead of 'were' is very revealing. It's as though she's quoting something that she has been advised by a counsellor. 'The first 48 hours are the most difficult'. What she has done here is displaced herself from the scene and is reporting on it, not from it.

It is also revealing how she uses the word 'you' and, again, shows her displacement. She says: "after that you get strength from somewhere". Why is she using 'you' in this sentence? The interviewer has asked her for her personal feelings. Why doesn't she say 'I got strength...' or 'we got strength...' Again, she is placing herself outside the event, looking in.

She uses the word 'we' six times in this brief quote because it would appear she's struggling to answer it, without revealing that she has never actually searched for her missing daughter. Use of the word 'we' and also 'us', which is mentioned twice along with Gerry's name, suggests she's trying to hide under a 'united' front. This suggests she feels vulnerable and needs the support from Gerry to continue. The overall impression given is that they are not individuals, with their own feelings, but a team who will not be diverted from the path they have chosen.

She also mentions the word 'really' three times, which could be interpreted as a conscious, or subconscious, desire to convince the interviewer, and those watching, that she 'really' is telling the truth.

It would appear from this passage that she's telling us, in a displaced way, how she thinks 'they' should feel, not how 'she' herself really did feel. Why? Is it because she is nervous in her first interview or could it be because she doesn't know how someone who has had their daughter abducted really feels?


Ultimately, Kate's answer, despite being wrapped in curious passages where she feels compelled to mention the support they've received, is quite shocking. The fact is, despite locals giving up work for a week to search the beach and streets for Madeleine, she has admitted that she never actually did any physical searching for her missing daughter.

The only other question directed to Kate, specific to the disappearance was this one:

Jane Hill: 'And then on that Thursday night, Kate, when you realised that she wasn't in her bed where you left her. Did you think even momentarily perhaps that she'd just woken up, wandered off of her own accord, perhaps?'

Kate: 'Not at all, no' (There is then a pause, where Jane Hill may well have expected Kate to elucidate the reasoning behind her bold answer but Kate doesn't say anymore - after an embarrassingly long pause Gerry takes over and answers the question)

Link to complete Jane Hill interview here

Kate's interview with Women's Hour - 08 August 2007

Jenny: 'There has been a lot of speculation as well though that the police have treated you and your husband as suspects. How do you handle that kind of very personal speculation?'

Kate: 'I mean, I think you just gotta think to yourself... I mean, you need the investigation to be thorough and, errm, you know, we'd welcome that really, errm, you know... you know, we've got a very good working relationship with the Portuguese police and, errr, we've come a long way since the beginning of the investigation. And I mean, the police were very open at the beginning saying everybody is a suspect and I think that's often the case in, in many crimes as well'

As is common in Kate's answers, she often uses the word 'you' when she has been asked for her own opinions. This would suggest she is placing herself outside the event. And yet again, when she feels vulnerable, she resorts to frequent use of the word 'we' to remind us that she is part of a 'united' team.

By placing emphasis on the fact that 'we've come a long way since the beginning of the investigation' it could appear that the most important aspect of the case, for Kate, is the investigation, not the recovery of her daughter.

Jenny: 'Was she sleeping when you left her?'

Kate: (Long pause) 'Errm, yes, she was, yeah'.

Why should Kate need a significant pause to be able to answer that question? The immediate impression from both the pause, her answer and the way she says it, is that she momentarily didn't know what to say. But how could that be?

Jenny: 'What was your first thought, what did you think immediately had happened?' (Upon discovering that Madeleine wasn't there)

Kate: 'Well, obviously I kind of looked and double looked and, errm, you know, obviously, there was twenty seconds of, you know, she must be there (laughs). Errm, but there was no doubt in my mind within (laughs) probably thirty seconds, errm, that Madeleine had been taken from that room. I can't go into the reasons why I thought that but it was... no doubt whatsoever. And Madeleine wouldn't have walked out herself. I know that.'

Kate gives an extraordinarily convoluted and inarticulate answer to a very simple question.

Jenny: 'And how will you deal with the guilt that will probably stay with you forever of having left Madeleine alone?'

Kate: 'Well, I have actually come to terms a little bit with... with that, Jenny, I mean, you know... I know the, errm, I know the situation that we were in that night and uh, I've said all along, I didn't feel I was taking a risk. Errm, yeah, I... I do feel desperately sorry I wasn't with Madeleine at that minute when she was taken. Errm, I'd also like to mention I've had so much support from so many people. I've had so many letters and comments sent me.. sent to me from other families, and particularly other mums saying, you know, we have done what you have done a hundred times over, do not blame yourself.'

There are three peculiar aspects to Kate's answer:

What does Kate mean by the phrase 'I know the situation we were in that night'?

Why does Kate say she is desperately sorry she wasn't with Madeleine 'at that minute when she was taken'? She specifically emphasises 'at that minute' when she speaks.

Why does she seek to justify her decision to leave her three small children alone, every night of the holiday, by suggesting that other families had done this a 'hundred times over'? This is surely a ludicrous exaggeration. How many families have 'hundreds' of holidays with their children?

You can listen to the full interview by clicking here

Kate's first interview without Gerry - The Independent 05 August 2007

Obviously, interviews printed in the media are not such good indicators as the pauses and half-words are edited out and the result is a sanitised version of the interview.

Yet again, though, Kate's answers to questions specific to the investigation follow a similar pattern as above.

Some examples:

Kate: 'There wasn't a shadow of a doubt in my mind she'd been taken. That's why the fear set in. Then you go through the guilt phase.'

Again, in that last sentence, she appears to have displaced herself from the event and sounds like she is quoting something she has been advised by a counsellor. She's not telling us how she, as a participant in the event, felt. She's telling us, in general terms, what somebody would feel who went through that situation.

Kate: 'You don't expect a predator to break in and take your daughter out the bed.'

This is a curiously dismissive, casual and unfeeling way to describe the nightmarish abduction of your own daughter. And again, she speaks as though she's placed outside the event, using 'you' instead of 'I' or 'we'. As she is being asked for her personal insight, would it not have been normal to expect a response such as 'We never expected a predator to break in and take our daughter'.

Kate: 'Why would you for one minute think something like that would happen?' It's not like we went down town or anything.'

Again, use of the word 'you', displacing her from the event, in a defensive, dismissive and almost aggressive statement.

Kate: 'You can't imagine in your wildest dreams that anyone would do something like that.'

Why use of the word 'you' and 'your wildest dreams'? Why not say 'I never imagined in my wildest dreams that anyone could do something like that.' Again, as before, it places Kate outside the event, looking in and recounting a story.

Kate: 'That night runs over and over in my mind, and I'm sure people will learn from our mistake, if you want to call it that.'

We can surely call leaving her three small children, under 4 years of age, alone in a dark and strange apartment a mistake, at the very least.

It's also worth noting that in this interview Kate states:

'Maybe it was because it was family-friendly, because it felt so safe. That week we had left them alone while we had dinner.'

This clarifies that the McCanns left their children alone every night of the holiday, whilst they went drinking with their friends. And:

'I was checking for her. Then there was panic and fear. That was the first thing that hit. I was screaming her name. I ran to the group. Everyone was the same.'

Kate clearly states that she ran back to the tapas restaurant to sound the alarm. Other witnesses have suggested that she shouted to the group from the balcony of her apartment. Indeed, if she did run back to the tapas restaurant, it would appear an extraordinary decision to leave the twins alone again, when she was 'immediately' convinced that Madeleine had just been abducted.

(This interview can be read on this sites Kate McCann page here)

Leicester Mercury interview - 03 October 2007

On the whole a banal interview but containing two strange moments from Kate:

Interviewer: When were you aware of the green and yellow Madeleine bands?

Gerry: "It must have been quite early on. When did they start? I don't know."

Kate: "Time passed by so surreally. It was the first few hours, then eight hours, then 24 hours, 48 hours, then 72 hours... I don't remember. Each day felt like a week."
What on earth is Kate talking about here? The question was about the green and yellow Madeleine wristbands but Kate appears to be answering a completely different question!

Interviewer: What can you say about the legal side? It's been widely reported that Portuguese Inspector Goncalo Amaral has been relieved of his duties...

Gerry: "We can't comment on that. We want to emphasise enough our thanks, to the people of Leicestershire who helped to raise this money and for the support we have received. It's just so uplifting. A few nights ago, we had a curry with some friends."

Kate: "It was just a takeaway, we weren't out having a meal."

Yet another curious interjection from Kate. Why is she so sensitive about going out for a meal?

You can read the rest of the Leicester Mercury interview here

It is clear that by the time Kate and Gerry did their interview for Spanish TV Station Antena 3, Kate had been well briefed and rehearsed on answers to the questions. In many ways, it was a series of small scripted statements rather than a spontaneous interview. That may be the reason why Gerry looked so unhappy, because he was unable to control the course of the interview and was left at the mercy of Kate's performance.

In Kate's early interviews, with Gerry, she said virtually nothing, preferring to let Gerry speak and control the interview. The Antena 3 interview was all about Kate and the need to show emotion. However, the reported tears and four breaks in filming have yet to be seen. It should be noted that Kate holding a hand over her forehead does not equal real emotion. Nor does wiping your hand across your cheek to remove a non-existent teardrop.

Back to top


jackieL



Joined: 19 May 2007
Posts: 1333

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:17 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many thanks for this, Teabag.

CKH_now_mostly@_MirrorForum said...

Forgive me if someone has already shared this, but Clarence was a phone-in guest on the BBC-Radio5 call-in show on Friday evening (11th) regarding the furor over the Maddie look-a-like agency. Here's a link to the show on the BBC Radio: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/mainframe.shtml?http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/fivelive_aod.shtml?fivelive/nolan_fri
Unfortunately, you have to listen to about 10-15 minutes of coverage regarding flooding somewhere in England, but after that you can hear the full chat. Although the host tries to cut-off or hangup on some of the "anti" callers, a few of them are able to get in a few licks on poor Clazza and he seems to be completely unaware of the irony when he complains about people trying to make money off of Madeleine's disappearance. *grimace*

Enjoy!
CKH

CKH said...

Hi Y'all --

Ironside has got a bunch of folks in a tizzy on the Mirror forum regarding your thread on 3arguidos about the trademarking of of Madeleine's name!! Where'd you hear about that? I thought it was just something that I had dreamed because I didn't think even Gerry would dare to go that far! How can anyone continue to make excuses for those monsters?

I suggested on the MF the other day that someone contact Martin Brunt at SkyNews and suggest he take a trip down into their news vault and see if he can't locate the master tape for that interview with Mrs. Healy where she said that K&G sometimes gave Maddie a valium but I don't know if anyone followed up.

I tried to locate an email address for Brunty earlier this month to suggest he take a look at that side-by-side pic of Murat and Payne that Viv had posted here a while back to show that the "new" witnesses claiming to have seen Murat that night were mistaken, but I never found an email address for Brunt on the SkyNews website.

It's heartening that some of the other newspapers are beginning to abandon the McCann's sinking ship but WHY haven't any of the British journalists actually start digging into the McCanns background to actually INVESTIGATE???!!! It's so frustrating because it appears that the McCanns have now got their sights set on conquering America with their sob story to refill their fund's coffers if the Vanity Fair article is anything to go by.

Okay, enough ranting! I hope everyone has a chance to check out that BBC-radio link I posted earlier to hear Clarrie dig himself even deeper.

Take care,
CKH

felicity said...

ckh Thanks so much I just had a listen and made some notes below which I hope others will find interesting. Viv x
Clarence Mitchell talking about child models being offered by an agency to play the part of Maddie - he accepted it was the press reports of a film that brought this all about!

Incredibly upset hurtful in the extreme never sought to inform us as a courtesy ..not aware of the sensivity shameful exploitation someone is seeking to make money out of this situation if she asked permission it would have been rejected apology will make little difference damage has been done trying to justify it could help Madeleine there are no reconstructions to be done Portuguese police don’t want any reconstructions to be done

Exploitative move
Child actors for the film

this is how this whole ridiculous situation came about one of a number of meetings we had we did not say we wanted a movie or film made we did not agree to anything factual documentaries no wait for this we are not interested we are not interested in a film doing a straight reproduction of the abduction ....well told oover last six months we want to look at other issues lack of proper coordination in Europe when child goes missing amber alert in America no such system exists in europe ...political momementum behind the situation

Hollywood blockbuster on the daily express front page..(very clear emnity towards the Daily Express)

We are failing Madeleine if we do not bring in more money that could lead to the search to find her now runs at 570K we have to replenish the fund the media are making money out of this we are doing it on behalf of madeleine herself.

Cant do big sit down interview because of their status as arguidos (so they are looking for ways they can still make cash anyway)

Getting some good out of this awful situation

They are comfortable with the idea some good out of this if we do it right
We have kept the media on side and hopefully kept the public on side (really?)

Gerry thinks this woman offerinng child Maddie lookalikes is disgusting and tacky "why weren’t we asked" we are not proposing a film that would need maddie lookalike we believe possibly still alive being held against her will it sickens me

I phoned this woman back she wanted to apologise I said I would pass the apology on I said would she consider putting any money in the fund she should make an effort to contribute or all profits to the fund that might ameliorate the backlash she faces by offering look-alikes. (so in other words Gerry is not really affronted by the idea of her offering Maddie lookalikes to play Maddie - what he is really upset about is that the McCanns were not consulted and no money is going into the fund - if it were then that would be ok!!!)

felicity said...

CKH

Do what? I do not have a thread on 3 Arguidos! - can you send me a link and to the discussion the Mirror please?

CHEERS VIV X