Complaining about no police force in the case: the McCanns
were making smoke and mirrors, showing their innocence. They never expected the
Yard to get involved in it.
"Find the body and prove we killed her" that was
also a sentence to eliminate any hope of the police, to find her body.
Again smoke and mirrors, in my opinion.
Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Jan 4, 2013 12:58:00
PM"
Well, it’s time to debunk another Maddie Urban Myth, the one
that has Gerry defying all by saying "Find the body and prove we killed
her".
Sorry to disappoint many but Gerry never said such, or
anything resembling it.
Those words were said indeed, but by Jose Alberto Carvalho
(JAC), currently a TVI News Anchor, but at RTP1 at the time, when talking live
with Sandra Felgueiras (SF) who was then in the UK.
He states that he’s quoting a friend of the McCanns.
A FOAF and a text-book one to boot: “a quote from a friend
of the family conveying the intent of the McCann couple”.
Could anyone ever find a better example to demonstrate
a FOAF, with all its characteristics, including effect?
As we know, FOAF and Truth make such an odd a pair that was
ever seen to date.
This is what was said in the RTP1 News on September 12th,
2007:
JAC: "... opening the news, a quote from a friend of
the family conveying the intent of the McCann couple, which basically says
this: "Find the body and prove we killed her"... what explanations
are being given to this phrase said in such a way?”
SF: "The Daily Mail who was who put forward this
information says it knows that the McCanns' lawyers, Michael Caplan and Angus
McBride, have already told them that without the body it will be very
difficult for the PJ to prove that they are behind a crime of murder and
of concealment of a corpse, but it should be referred to our viewers that it’s
precisely today that Joana disappeared three years ago and that Joana's mother
and Joana’s uncle were condemned to the maximum sentence by the Portuguese
Justice for a crime that it was proved they committed but that the body never
appeared, that meaning, if the McCanns' lawyers told them that then surely they’re
not aware of the historical developments of court cases in Portugal namely this
Joana one…”
The quoted Daily Mail seems to confirm that the
McCanns lawyers were convinced that if there was no body, there was no case and
that they had indeed advised the couple accordingly:
“Yesterday it emerged that lawyers in Britain acting for the McCanns have advised them the Portuguese authorities will struggle
to press charges that stick.
A close friend said: "The legitimate question to ask
Portuguese police is: 'Where is the body? Where's the evidence that Madeleine
is dead?'."
(…)
McCann's lawyers believe it will be almost impossible to
press charges without finding the corpse”
There you have it. No, Gerry did NOT ever say "Find the
body and prove we killed her".
It was the very expensive lawyers then recently hired who
said something of the sort that if there was no body, there would be no case
Nowhere could we find a direct quote from either
lawyer so we can’t reproduce the exact words of what they did in fact say to
the McCanns.
But no one can describe any of the recently hired very
expensive lawyers as “a (close) friend of the family“, or can one?
Post Sriptum:
Transcription in Portuguese of the conversation between JAC
and SF:
JAC: “...inicio do telejornal, uma citação dum
amigo da família transmitindo uma intenção do casal McCann, que diz basicamente
isto: “Encontrem o corpo e provem que a matámos”, que explicações é que estão a
ser dadas para esta frase dita desta forma?”
SF: “O Daily Mail que foi quem avançou essa
infoemaçao diz que sabe que os advogados dos McCann, Michael Caplan e Angus
McBride, já os... já lhes disseram que sem aparecer o corpo será muito difícil
à Polícia Judiciária provar que eles estão por detrás dum crime de homicídio e
de ocultação de cadáver, mas convém referir aos nossos telespectadores que faz
precisamente hoje três anos que Joana desapareceu e que a... os... a mãe de
Joana e o tio de Joana foram condenados pela Justiça Portuguesa à pena máxima e
que se encontram a cumprir essa mesma pena on.. por um crime foi provado que
cometeram mas que nunca apareceu o corpo, ou seja, se os advogados dos McCann lhe
disseram isto seguramente que não estão a par dos desenvolvimentos históricos
de casos judiciais em Portugal nomeadamente este de Joana, mas deixa...”
Post-Post Scriptum:
The timing of this post obviously is not innocent.
We would like to warn our readers that we won't publish any
comments which speculate whether Bridger is guilty or not or any speculation
about what might have happened in that particular case whilst trial in
progress.
The charge faced by the accused man (Bridger), who is from Machynlleth, of attempting to pervert the course of justice refers to the unlawful disposal and concealment of a body.
ReplyDeleteAt least we now know that in the UK the disposal and concealment of a body is unlawful and that it is possible to charge a person without finding a body.
The McCanns should ask their expensive lawyers why they stated there could be no charges without a body being found.
Good point. What precipitated McCann's very expensive lawyers to suggest such a thing. McCanns are running scared. And they should be very scared by now. This case is not going to be dropped anytime soon.
Delete@1, this is good news. But the McCanns have to wait till their expensive lawyers feel better because they must be shocked.
ReplyDeleteIt is a sad story, poor April.
Police don't even have some blood, like the PJ found of Joana's.
Who knows other people took part in April's disappearence. I have the feeling that that man is covering up for somebody else, but who?
McCann - no body - no charges
ReplyDeleteBridger - no body - charges
what did Orwell say? We're all equal but some are more equal than others
Bless you George!
I think this makes things much more serious. The lawyers never contradicted this so we can assume that they advised their client the way the Mail says. This constitutes, in my opinion, wrongful professional advise. As lawyers they should have known that what was said (no body, no charges) was wrong legally. It's like a doctor telling a patient with gangrene that it doesn't need to have the limb amputated. I thought it was Gerry had said this so didn't give it any importance other than him being his usual arrogant self. But this is serious, Isn't there some sort of entity in England, like our Lawyer's Order, that should reprimand these professionals for providing clients wrong professional information?
ReplyDeleteunless you see it with your own eyes you probably wont believe it but i seen that video of gerry mccann saying find the body and prove we killed her he did say it and many others seen the same video 4 months after i first seen it it had been removed but i swear he did say it, it annoys me that people try and say it wasnt said by gerry when they didnt see what i and many other seen
DeleteDeleted Care Ren at 5 May 2015, 18:04:00
DeleteYour comment has been deleted because it contains complaints about other people and sites that do not concern the blog.
However we can say that you said in it "I see this video as well Jacqui your not imagining it"
Unpublished jacqui at 5 May 2015, 19:16:00
DeleteYour comment is not published because it contains complaints about other sites and people that do not concern the blog.
Thought provoking but I think it is important to bear in mind lawyers always act with the best interests of their clients in mind.
ReplyDeleteI think it is unkind to blame the journalist for being over cautious. If he had actually mentioned the name of the lawyers THAT might got him into trouble with the posse. By using the term "friend" instead, he avoided finding himself framed in the same existential predicament as Amaral and Bennett - to quote but two victims of the posse...
BTW Isabel Duarte considers herself a friend of the McCanns' or at least suggests that. She is also the McCanns' lawyer - and Marcos Aragão Correia's lawyer who in turn is the lawyer of Leonor Cipriano. MAC turns out (I read here) to be the godchild of Marinho Pinto (President of the Bar) - a key witness for the McCanns' (and his godchild) but I digress...
OK, the journo could have been misinformed. Point taken. Journalism takes place within tight constraints such as deadlines. FOAFs are sometimes necessary. That way the info got out and no one got hurt.
Did Gerry ever said that? Who knows?
The fact that he is not on record saying so does not mean he did not thought so. No doubt, his lawyers did and no doubt the PJ noted that.
Gerry did say: "Ask the dogs!" but it is not clear what he meant by that...
:) Textusa is going to "iron" me on this one, I know...
i seen it on youtube he said it, Gerry Mccanns words "find the body and prove we killed her" and i was not the only one who seen the video, it really shocked me at the time and i watched it more than once that why i know for a fact gerry said it
DeleteAnon #5
ReplyDeleteYes, you're digressing.
When you say "The fact that he is not on record saying so does not mean he did not thought so" is pure speculation of the worst kind.
Speculating what another person thinks as a follow-up of an action or an event is reasonable within reason and we have done so many times here,
To speculate, as you do, just because the it's convenient to have people continue to connect Gerry to those words (He didn't say but could have said it... so why even say it as you do?) is digressing, to say the least. Why you do it, it's up to you.
And not satisfied you follow the above speculation with a double speculation: "No doubt, his lawyers did and no doubt the PJ noted that"
No doubt the lawyers said? How did you reach that conclusion? Nowhere, as is said in the post can the lawyers be quoted on this, so, at least for us, there's an enormous distance from a likely "probably said" to an adamant "No doubt".
As said on the post, we have no certainty whatsoever about what the lawyer's have said.
No doubt the PJ noted? Where did you get this from? Nowhere is the PJ referred in the conversation nor on the post and this conversation is not referred to in the PJ Files. Where does this certainty come from? Out of the blue sky? Lucky you then, because you have a much nice weather than we're having at the moment.
But all this speculating has an origin: your comment is basically speculation through and through.
The reporter was cautious to refer to the lawyers because of libel. Was that so? Why? The Daily Mail (DM) seems not to be afraid in the UK, so why would JAC be scared in Portugal?
By the way, both the DM and JAC refer to a friend of the family.
So, are both are scared of libel and by coincidence, both react the exact same way, or, as is most likely to have been, both quote the same source who might indeed be a friend of the family or someone who asked to quoted as such?
Then you bring, again the intertwining of characters of legal processes taking place in Portugal.
Out of all you said the only thing that matters to the post is you saying that Isabel Duarte considers herself a friend of the McCanns. Never read it, so won't confirm it or deny it, but would find perfectly natural that such a long professional relationship would evolve to friendship.
What I don't find natural is someone hired on the 11th to be considered a close friend or even a friend of the family as you implicitly try to imply with your Isabel Duarte analogy.
Finally, it's unbecoming to condition in any way, like you did with your golf analogy, any answer by predicting the reply. By now you should know that we fly in a tight formation of three with one common denominator: conscience. We react or not to comments not because of nice written words, challenges or predictions. We answer when our consciences dictate we should answer.
The same methodology we apply to comments we choose to ignore.
Thank you for your comment.
this is ridiculous i seen the video of Gerry Mccann saying Find the body and prove we killed her i watched it more than once as i was shocked that he would say that and thats how i remember it so well, and im not the only person who seen that video im fuming that its been removed and im fuming when i know what i saw and heard and someone tries to convince others that it was never said. i would never argue with anyone unless im 100% sure i am right and i am definatly right on this one
Deletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/14/april-jones-mark-bridger-court
ReplyDelete"Mark Bridger probably responsible for April Jones's death, court told
Bridger denies abducting and murdering five-year-old girl but concedes he is 'probably responsible' for her death.
Former lifeguard Mark Bridger has conceded he is "probably responsible" for the death of April Jones but has denied her abduction and murder.
(...)
The judge said there was to be no reporting of any evidence discussed during the hearing in case it prejudiced Bridger's trial, which is expected to last around four weeks and take place at the same court. He also put an order in place banning the naming of any child witnesses mentioned.
(...)
Bridger's barrister, Brendan Kelly, suggested the trial should be heard well away from mid-Wales because "ill feeling" was likely to run high. The judge decided it ought to stay in Mold, partly because it was the easiest court for April's parents to get to. He said he was satisfied the jury system was "more than sufficient" to address any concerns. The court heard Bridger would travel from HMP Manchester, formerly known as Strangeways, every day for the trial.
(...)
Dyfed Powys police have vowed to continue to search for April until all viable lines of inquiry are complete. On Friday the force said 16 search teams had resumed investigations after a two-week break over Christmas."
Anon 5, around 11/12 September 2007 NO ONE was afraid of libel about the Maddie case. The McCanns flew in on the 9, if I'm not mistaken, and were considered guilty by everyone. The McCanns weren't worried about libel then, what concerned them was not to face extradition. That's why they hired these lawyers specifically who had handled the Pinochet case. The specialists in libel are Carter-Ruck who were hired later. What's your agenda?
ReplyDeleteTextusa, in case the process being reopened, is it obliged to happen in Porto or in Algarve, or can it happen anywhere in Portugal?
ReplyDeleteAnd who is authorized to do it?
Without body. Let's see what UK will decide.
ReplyDeleteThere are more children whose bodies have not appeared. And comparing only two cases, the press can shape and mold future events.
I can think of two missing bodies, two bodies of two children of England, may be similar.
This is the case in the Children UK English yet (and maybe never) not found might be shaped more for a case of abduction, of sightings. It will be an eternal missing.
The newspapers only give news about parents´s wishes : Her return to home ...... alive. Newspapers are doing campaign to mold the thoughts of readers. That is, to prepare the public for another child "kidnapped" and held by gypsies or Moroccans. And the sightings can begin. This is all my opinion.
I don´t think NOT Her parents are guilty. No.
Have the Maddie case, no body. And will build another case equal. Do not forget: this is my opinion.
And one month before yesterday the news was like that:
who need counseling by the disappearance of...
And the statement that came out of the barrister's completely strange. It's who says it will be XX PROBABLY guilty. But what is this?
Anon #9,
ReplyDeleteI'm not the best person to answer that question.
I know that the request to reopen the process must be addressed to whoever dispatched it for archival until further notice.
If he found reason enough in the requirement to reopen to process, logic would say that it would be sent to Algarve where the events took place.
Eventually, due to the sensitivity and importance of the case, the dispatcher might see reason to centralize the coordination of the investigation in Lisbon.
But, as I said, I'm speculating.
What's totally illogical is for it to be to Porto. Why not Coimbra? Braganca? Beja?
I don't think the case will ever be "fully" reopened in Portugal. Not because of the reasons that we're currently explaining as to why the SY Review is blocked but because any "reasonable outcome" that will defend UK's interests in the matter will always imply certain "conditions" to which the Portuguese Authorities would have to agree in abiding.
The Portuguese are fed up with the issue, they've done their part so I'm not seeing any reason or possibility for the Portuguese Authorities accept to obey to conditions set by another Country when a "No, thank you" will be sufficient to avoid getting further into a very murky case.
Thank you for your comment.
Thank you for explaining. Don't you think that the McCanns have lost their power?
ReplyDeleteNews of the World is crashed, Brown idem, and if Portugal is fed up with the issue, the British government are fed up as well.
The must pushing people I have heard of are the McCanns, difficult and annoying.
In my opinion, both countries want to get rid of them.
We don't hear anything from them, no interviews, nothing because they are scared of the PJ.
On his last interview, Carlos Angos says that the Yard still did not find anything contradictig the PJ's work.
UK intersts? That is long ago, when the N of the W still existed.
Things have dramatically change for the McCanns.
We can read it on their faces, if we get to see them.
I hope you are not right, Textusa.
We will see it.
Anon #12
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't think they've lost any power. To lose is to have had, and the McCanns never had any.
A Nation's interests are timeless.
They're permanent although what they were yesterday might not be what they are today nor what they will be tomorrow. Their importance however is constant.
It's a decision between all the players what it does indeed mean and implicate to the interests of UK the closure of the McCann case.
And when I say closure I mean its various options or even of a closure at all.
Good FACEBOOK site:
ReplyDeleteThe MADELEINE MCCANN CONTROVERSY become members please!
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4744498/I-probably-killed-april-jones-court-told-of-Mark-Bridgers-admission.html
ReplyDelete"EX-LIFEGUARD Mark Bridger leaves court yesterday after his lawyer said he will be “conceding he probably killed” five-year-old April Jones.
Bridger denied murdering the vanished schoolgirl at Mold in North Wales.
...
They sat 10ft from the 47-year-old as he pleaded not guilty to kidnapping and murdering schoolgirl April, who has not been seen since vanishing near her home last October 1.
...
Goatee-bearded Bridger — looking close to tears in a blue jumper and jeans — also denied perverting the course of justice by unlawfully disposing of, destroying or concealing April’s body.
...
Mr Kelly told North Wales’ Mold Crown Court: “The defence as advanced by Mark Bridger involves him conceding he probably killed the child.”
Judge Mr Justice Griffith-Williams said: “The defendant’s case is that he is probably responsible for the death of April.”
...
Hundreds of people scoured the rugged Welsh terrain, while locals decked out her home town in pink.
Officers are continuing to search the countryside."
Isn't all this weird? Not guilty but killed...
I have this feeling that this trial is being handled with an amount of care that's not usual. It's like they know that people are watching the trial but already in comparison with a possible Maddie trial.
What a curse! Whenever there's a child missing, or there's a trial about a child that has died, Maddie will always come up. And in trials where the body has to be found still people's thoughts go immediately to Maddie.
There'a another myth resulting from a FOAF, the one of Maddie's blanket and the Oprah Show. Many are convinced that Kate mentioned the vanished blanket in the show, but nothing of the sort happened! It was Oprah that mentioned it, it was Oprah that joined the FOAF's club:
ReplyDeleteFrom McCann Files:
"Note: At no point in the Oprah Show does Kate McCann refer to the blanket. The exchange that takes place is:
Oprah: "Well, I, you know, I'd read something that said there were times even, you know, early on after she, errr... went missing that you would say: 'I want... I hope that whoever has her gives her her blanket'; 'I hope that whoever has her is keeping her warm'; 'I hope that whoever has her...'"
Kate: "I mean, it's funny, it's, you know, I mean... as a mum it's things like that you worry about, as well, you know. Is someone brushing her teeth? Is someone rubbing her tummy when she's not feeling well? You know, it's... it's all those things, that as a mother, you know, you do and you should be doing and..."
Why Oprah mentioned the blanket, what made her mention the blanket, of all things...? But Kate didn't fall for it...she steared well around the subject...
Textusa, do you think that the UK have interests in closure? If the McCanns never had power, what would be the UK's interest doing it.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that the power came from the media which blackmailed the Labour.My idea is that the mCcanns have no friend left, including Tapas 7 which got in difficulties because of their cover up. Kate and Gerry could have lost all of them by now and I bet they did.
I have to admit that this is taking centuries, if not millions of years.
I agree with you that Portugal will not accept a new humilliation. Would the Met police agree with the half of the work in order to please Britain? I hope they have some sense of dignity.
But dignity is something that the Portuguese people also have, including the PJ, and Portugal obliged them to accept that humilliation.
I don't see any advantage to again protect the McCanns, since Rebecca Brooks disappeared, concentrated on her own problems. That snake is the one which pressured the British government.
You could be right, Textusa, with the theory that Portugal is not accepting the British conditions but I hope this is only a nightmare, haunting us.
We all lost our trust in everything that comes from the UK and for very good reasosns.
Anon #17
ReplyDeleteWe hope to reply to your statement "It is true that the power came from the media which blackmailed the Labour." with a post.
There is an excellent article of Balcksmith on McCann files.
ReplyDeleteAmaral (McCann Files) will speak this evening on one of the Portuguese schools.
ReplyDeleteI hope we will see pictures of that event.
Textusa at #6
ReplyDelete:) I did write that I expected you to "iron" me on this one and as a result my brain feels much neater now. Thank you.
However, you must remember, in case you missed the point, that my comment was an exercise in "deconstruction" (as in Jacques Derrida).
Isabel Duarte is on record as saying that this was a case that personally interested her from the very beginning. She felt an enormous sympathy for the plight of the parents. She is definitely a "friend of sorts" of the McCanns' and make no mistake - she is being generously paid for that. Someone would have to break into her accounts to find out exactly how much. May be one day we will know exactly (...)
How do we know the McCanns' lawyer (if any) was not expressing their views and/or was not acting on their own initiative? Chances are it was. Why don't we state just that in a piece of news or commentary? Has GM said otherwise?
Again, we really don't know what JAC thought at the time. That was a guess based on how I as a journo, given some potential bona fide information, might have acted to fit a deadline and dodge any potential libel (with a modicum of conscience).
We must not forget that we are dealing here with two (or more) potential child neglecter's (if the circumstantial evidence in the process is anything to go by) so all reasonable means to prevent the Truth from sinking are (in my view) if not correct at least acceptable.
I would not have written this if I was a blog editor - for obvious reasons. Here in the comment box we are just expressing passing thoughts of no consequence. Do I really believe in what I wrote? Yes. No. Maybe.
Of course you are right Textusa but Derrida is right too.
Incidentally EVEN if GM had said what is said he has said, what would that imply? It would have meant just that and nothing else, unless we brought semiotics or other means, to bear on the statement.
GM did not say "I found her dead and disposed of the body. Now find the body and prove I did just that!". Even if he had said that (which he did not) in a court of law, with a multi-million lawyer team, top political connections and reputation management experts, it would have meant nothing.
In future, I shall stick to recorded facts and draw no inferences from them whatsoever which means I am effectively gagged! (joking).
# 17 your question to Textusa is a thought-provoking one. I wonder what her reply will be and I look forward to it...
ReplyDeleteMeantime let me give you my humble opinion as another Portuguese in the fog.
The McCanns' and their friends (either by status and/or association) are high up in the ideological ladder. They are part of what Althusser calls ISAs (Ideological State Apparatuses). Add to Ideology its sister Hegemony (cultural hegemony to be precise) and you get the gist of it.
http://froberto.dnsalias.org/shared/Althusserian_Ideology/theory_althusser.html
The Portuguese PJ is correct in avoiding playing games with their cunning Yard counterparts for it is pretty clear what the "Yardies" are doing is some kind of post-imperial "interpellation" which boils down to "reputation management" on behalf of the McCanns'. Important to note that in Althusser's model doctors are always high-up in any ideology (...)
The Portuguese PJ is not buying into it even if Porto's PJ gives the impression to play "Dummy". They may be just over-seeing the Yard's moves and make sure they don't steal anything of critical importance or simply "counter-reputation management". I sincerely hope so.
How the McCanns' managed to have Amaral stand in a Portuguese court accused of defamation shall always remain as a stain in certain Portuguese judges and lawyers - even in the latter, if not the first, may have been motivated by large sums of money or "fees" if you prefer...
The fact that the Appelate judges called off the game at a later stage does not completely wash the stain. Far from it.
Let us see what happens next later this month. Fingers crossed.
#22 "Let us see what happens later this month"
ReplyDeleteFurther posts from Blacksmith today suggest that the McCanns are preparing to reach a settlement with Amaral.
Anon #23
ReplyDeleteIs it in that direction that the winds are currently blowing?
You know, following winds are indeed a relief for ships with big sails but quite useless for those paddling for their lives.
But, yes, it's much, much worse to paddle facing the wind. But really bad is paddling against the current.
I think the correct expression is "paddling up a dry creek".
If I got it wrong I apologise.
I remember reading it once about me in a BH site but didn't pay much attention to it at the time. Maybe I should have.
@23 I know this is all pure conjecture still, Amaral would be very stupid to accept any settlement from the McCanns'.
ReplyDeleteIt may be all about money and dry cleaning for them (seemingly) but for Amaral should not be just about money. It is about his country, his honour and that of the PJ... and (of course) about a massive compensation payout determined by him and him alone.
A figure that should teach the Macs a lesson - namely that imperial British ideology (in this day and age) counts for nothing. Not in Portugal!
Welcome to planet Terra!
@23, thank you for telling. I read Balacksmith several times today, wondering if I understood it well. You understood the same I did.
ReplyDeleteWhere did Balcksmith get that news from?
Kate's mother told that Kate had visions of Madeleine. Kate herself told it too on her book.
ReplyDeleteIs it than more than obvious that she saw Maddié's ghost and a ghost comes from a dead person?
In Portugal there is total silence and the UK comes the JBS count things in the wind and the waves? He changes direction very easily. We have to wait for the news of My Country! The Country of GA! ( googlês)
ReplyDeleteEm Portugal há silêncio total e, de UK vem o JBS contar coisas ao sabor dos ventos e das ondas? Ele muda de rumo com muita facilidade. Temos de esperar pelas notícias do Meu País! O País de GA!
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/m/press/5sep7/Express-13-09-07.htm
ReplyDeleteThis report is the Truth.
Yours at 24.
Did you mean "up the creek without a paddle" which is a UK version.
I saw a recent photo of Amaral's (Mccann Files).
ReplyDeleteHe looks exactly like he looked on Julia,last year. I'm happy about that. It seems to be less bad than I feared.
He could have lost weight for a preventive matter.
Suddenly Blacksmith started to write a lot about the case and I have the strong feeling that he is in contact with people who know what is about to happen. In my opinion, there is a leak swomewhere. Somebody is passing news to him and it does not have to be Amaral.And he has to hide the source.
ReplyDeleteWe are all impatient to learn more about the case and maybe that is the reason Blacksmith is writing those articles.
Anon #29
ReplyDeleteYes, I'm familiar with the expression. What I wrote is what my memory retained and what at the time found quite amusing: me sitting in a canoe, paddling on dry ground so going nowhere.
But the insults then were so many that it was hard to keep track of them all and I did say I could be wrong and my mind just being playing tricks on me.
Good day.
ReplyDeleteThey want to see how GA was on the 16th of January this year?
It is often the pictures are not updated.
http://mariacpois.blogspot.pt/2013/01/escola-adriano-correia-de-oliveira.html
We realize that internet is shuffled in a date, January 24, for the defamation suit against GA. So far we have not gotten more information.
ReplyDeleteSomos conscientes de que se baraja en internet una fecha, el 24 de enero, para el juicio por difamacion contra GA. De momento no hemos conseguido mas informacion.
Percebemos que a internet é embaralhado em uma data, 24 de janeiro, para o processo de difamação contra a GA. Até agora, não tivemos mais informações.
Desculpem o googlês. A informação vem no comentário 21 no
http://mercedessigueaqui.blogspot.pt/2012/12/feliz-navidad-joyeux-noel-merry.html#comment-form
Jacqui,
ReplyDeleteat 5 May 2015, 16:20:00
at 5 May 2015, 16:23:00
and unpublished at 5 May 2015, 19:16:00
When we wrote this post we researched the internet and found no such video, the one you speak of you saw.
There are many “truths” out there that aren’t true at all. For example, we have asked where is the evidence that Philip Edmonds left Luz on May 4 at 4 am, and have yet to receive a response. And we know many have gone out to look for it. They won’t find it because there is no evidence to support it. It is but an internet myth that grew into fact when it simply isn’t.
The video you speak of is supposed to have been between Sandra Felgueiras and the McCanns. Note that in the RTP1 video, José Alberto Carvalho is speaking to… Sandra Felgueiras. When he says that it is a friend of the McCanns who is said to have said the phrase, she nods affirmatively. Would she do that if it had been Gerry saying the phrase? No, she would correct the information.
Note the whole report is about the body being found or not. Note that Sandra Felgueiras is the one who says where this information comes from and names the people, Michael Caplan and Angus McBride, who said that without a body it would be difficult to have proof of a crime.
Note the context makes sense. That it is one of legal counselling in which makes sense the issue being discussed.
The video you say you saw, would have been a situation of pure arrogance and defiance (and because that apparently is befitting with Gerry’s personality it grew from myth to fact) and not in any way self-incriminating. So why woosh it?
There are many videos, I recall one where a infuriated Gerry stands up and interrupts an interview leaving a somewhat embarrassed Kate behind, in which this unpleasant trait of Gerry’s personality is shown. If such video existed, it would have been saved and captured.
It wasn’t by our side nor do we see the need for the other side to have wooshed it because in legal terms is not a liability.
The mind plays tricks on us. There are many, many misquotations. Some will never abandon the person who never said them
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/List_of_misquotations
Let me tell you about something that recently happened to me. I lost a bet because I insisted that I had read something in a statement. I was certain of certain specific details of such a statement and that’s why I made the wager. Have searched the statements and either it was wooshed, which I don’t believe it was, or I was wrong. If someone is to ask my opinion on the subject I would say the latter happened.
I paid the wager and will continue to search for the damn thing. If I find it, I will reclaim my loss, until then I will assume the loss.
Because legally as you say “unless you see it with your own eyes you probably won’t believe it”.
When we say Gerry never said “find the body”, we’re not calling you a liar. We’re simply being rigorous.
Show us the video and we will stand corrected.