Friday, 12 March 2010

Gerry and Kate McCann: are they talking gobbledy-gook or just having trouble keeping the pretence going?


"Gerry McCann: The biggest fear for us is that it puts Madeleine in think there are many...."

Many what? Many ways in which she is in danger? Ways in which she could come to harm or has already come to harm? But let's recall who put Madeleine in danger: those who left her alone did that.

"Kate McCann: ...makes the chances of finding her much more difficult.

Sandra F: When you think about dangers, what kind of things do you think about?"

Yes, Gerry. What are those "many..."?

"Gerry McCann: It's very difficult, isn't it, in terms of eh...until you know who's taken her, you've no idea and there's been many different scenarios which children are taken and have been held for very long periods of time, including years, and to the outward world they seem to be living a normal life. I think that with a young child in particular the chances of taking them to a new environment and them adapting is greater."

Gerry McCann is dissociating here, as usual. Instead of talking in the first person, i.e., "I," or, "we," Gerry opts for the impersonal, "you." Then he talks about "many different scenarios," but really does not touch on any dangers that he might be thinking of, and actually only describes one kind of scenario where a child who has been "taken," is out and about in the world, being seen and appearing to live a normal life. He is not answering the question about "dangers," because he is talking about a child adapting to a new environment and the message seems to be that the child is not in danger. Does he think this could apply to Madeleine, the world's most widely profiled child, with her recognisable eye defect? That she is adapting to a new environment and being seen (by whom?) to be living a normal life?

Perhaps Gerry is just trying to make sure there are many more "sightings," by encouraging the public to believe that Madeleine is to be seen out and about in the real world, just a seemingly normal child, living a seemingly normal life. So, keep looking.

The question was, "what dangers do you think about."? Madeleine might be in danger of adapting to a new environment? With paedos? In a "hellish lair."? No, you've lost me Gerry!

"Sandra F: You confess that you think some of these leads should have been better investigated, but last week the Portuguese General Attorney said that all the leads that were recently reported to the PJ after July 2008, were totally investigated and none, none were sufficiently reliable to re-open the case. Why do you think the General Public Attorney would say that if this wasn't true?"

"Gerry McCann: The first thing we have to do is look at the information, but from what we have seen so far, the same thing has been written about each individual piece of information and there is no evidence in the information that's been disclosed, but it's not acceptable to parents of a missing child for everything to be discounted. You know it doesn't matter what the information is , it's just discounted and that's not acceptable and if it's better for us as a family for the file to be opened, then that's what we'll press for."

Once again, Gerry McCann doesn't seem to have answered the question. What part of "totally investigated," does he not understand or choose to ignore before he launches into the prepared script? If the leads were "totally investigated," they have not just been discounted.

I'm not sure what Gerry means by, "the file to be opened." Does he mean the case to be re-opened? Sandra refers to there not being any sightings that were reliable enough for the case to be re-opened, not "the file." So, what is Gerry McCann talking about? Does he just not want to be quoted as saying he wants the case to be re-opened?

Video cuts to the McCanns' private investigator, Dave Edgar.

"Sandra F: Do you still think it's possible to find Madeleine alive?"

"Edgar: Of course it is. Of course it is. No body's been found. In my experience, in these cases if the child's been killed, they dump the body virtually straight away because I've seen these people don't want to be associated with the body."

What, every time, Mr Edgar? They dump the body? You worked in Northern Ireland, you must know about the "disappeared," whose bodies have never been found. When "these people," whoever they may be, don't want to be associated with a body, that's quite often why they bleedin' well bury it, or otherwise dispose of it! A body that is dumped straight away is probably a case where the perps have panicked and those are the ones where the police have the chance of finding forensic evidence. The killer will leave something of himself or herself behind, hence the thousands of children who disappear every year without trace cannot be assumed to be alive, sadly, just because a body has not been found. I am quite sure that you know this. Killers don't always give up the evidence of their crime so readily.

"Sandra F: (I can't pick up Sandra is saying at the beginning) .....From all that have been talked about.........????.....does any that touched you most? That you kept thinking about it?"

"Gerry McCann: The things that are most obvious are the sightings on the night of a child being carried, two separate things in Praia da Luz. But since then, I don't think there's been anything that I've really...there's been one or two that we've looked at twice."

"Sandra F: Can you tell me which they were?"

"Gerry McCann: Can't remember the specific eh....."

"Kate McCann: There was one, wasn't there? I think it was Amsterdam or Brussels..."

Neither of Madeleine's parents can remember the specific details of sightings they "looked at twice," and obviously just for a short time thought it might have been their daughter? If even for a few minutes or just seconds they got their hopes up, but they can't remember?

And Gerry states, "I don't think there's been anything that I'd really...." Really what? Give any credence to? So, what about all the information Gerry says has been passed to the PJ by the private investigators, that he thinks should be investigated and hasn't been? Does this mean that Gerry hasn't seen that information? If not, then how does he know it's worth investigating? If he has seen it, then he is actually saying in that unfinished sentence that it's not of any value. That's not gobbledy-gook! That just appears to be some short-term memory problem and Gerry and Kate both jumping in trying to cover it with vague references to sightings they don't remember! The leads have been "totally investigated," and by Gerry's own admission, there has been nothing he'd really...!!

I think I've answered my own question! The facade may be slipping. You've got to have a really good memory to keep lying for very long periods of time...including (nearly three!) years!