Forensic linguistics -

With kind permission from the poster on MM I'm copying this here. It is just one example of many where the McCanns seemingly let the truth shine through. Sticking to a lie is very hard to do, the brain often refuses to cooperate.

Below is relevant to the Vanity Fair interview - in 2007 I believe.


Re: 'Disposing of a child's body' Gerry McCann

Wintabells wrote:
“But I can’t talk to you about the details of what happened. I live under threat from the Portuguese—if I do talk—of two years’ imprisonment.” He smiles grimly. “It seems to be the same sentence as disposing of a child’s body.”


Sorry to bang on about this, but I think he slipped up here.

Gerry may as well be saying 'Look. Two years in prison, is what I'm trying to avoid - so telling you anything about the case is going to result in me going to prison for breaking judicial secrecy - so at that rate, I may as well tell you the truth about the part I played'.

And I believe he knew he'd made a slip up. 'It seems' sounds like an attempt to water down what would have been the original thought in his head ... 'It's the same sentence as disposing of a child's body'. And the expression, 'smiles grimly' is doubtless inaccurate. How does one smile grimly? have we ever seen Gerry smile grimly? No. He smiled at the irony of his situation. He's looking at 2 years for breaking judicial secrecy (ie. revealing the pack of lies he's told the police to the Vanity Fair interviewer) ...and he's looking at 2 years for revealing the truth.

In his interview with Ian Woods Gerry's makes a similar kind of comment https://onmyfrontporch.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/sky-news-interview-25-5-07-ian-woods-speaks-to-mccanns/

GMcC: If we did we wouldn’t tell you [laughs]

This moment in his Vanity Fair inteview, as far as I'm concerned, is the most revealing moment of them all. The unconscious mind cannot be supressed. My theory goes like this: Whatever happened to change Madeleine from a living child to a 'body' was not his doing. Disposal, however, was.
unquote

Great! Wintabells, I hadn't come across that one yet, or missed it. On a par with 'there's no evidence to implicate us in Madeleine's death' .
But I agree 100% with your analysis, forensic linguistics, in fact, why should that information be hanging around in his brain? It wasn't relevant to an abducted girl which should have been foremost in his mind. No, it was a big slip-up.

tigger

Another example:

The strange insistence on the name Maddie and Gerry's name written on the timeline (either by himself or by on of the T7) as 'Gerald'. Now that is strange, we're all in distress and I suddenly get formal. If it was Gerry himself, it's even weirder, but I think it was ROB.

Maddie:
I've always thought they called her Madeleine (neither of them seems to be able to pronounce it in any case Maddellyn?), it was to make it psychologically easier to talk about her. Maddie would be too close to the bone.
This is at present also the case with 'Baby Lisa' in the US, I think Pat Brown has also commented on the distancing of the parents by calling the child something else then when she was alive.
I've always thought, as soon as I realized it was not true they always called her Madeleine (neither of them seems to be able to pronounce it in any case Maddellyn?), it was to make it psychologically easier to talk about her. Maddie would be too close to the bone.


So we have quit a lot of insistence on the 'right' names, Kate who used to be Healy, Gerald who used to be Gerry and Maddie who herself (according to the book) knew how to spell her name properly and this toddler insisted on being called Madeleine.

I believe it is the distancing factor - she was always called Maddie, their daughter. Madeleine was a perfect and beautiful child, in fact another child altogether.
Gerry saying several times (outside Lisbon court) 'it's about this girl'.
Endless repeats of the phrase 'Madeleine needs to be with her family'. You can't get further away from 'Maddie must come home, we want Maddie back'.
As neither of them seem to be great psychologists, my feeling is that they had expert advice and that makes it worse.

Sorry about the long post, but I thought to keep the subjects separate. Monkeymind was wondering about the body and where it might have been kept. I am in favour of as few moves as possible and a large freezer.
Dr. Roberts:
The question prompted by the paradox attending Messrs McCann and Murat is this: How might Robert Murat have been previously known to Gerry McCann, despite their never having met?

Progress toward a possible answer is suggested by the McCanns' constant, almost monotonous reference to that 'key bit of information' held by a member of the public, and which Gerry McCann has long since suggested would 'unlock (the mystery of) where Madeleine was kept.' During an interview for ITV, as early as 25 May 2007, Gerry used these words exactly. However, he failed to include the phrase in parentheses, rendering his reference literal rather than metaphorical. ("We truly believe that a member of the public holds the information to unlock where Madeleine is being kept."). In October 2007 Kate told her Spanish interviewer from Antena 3, "I think she's probably in someone's house."

Forward in time to the following year (1 May, 2008) and an interview with Nicky Campbell for Radio 5 Live Breakfast. What do we hear?

KM: "Madeleine's still missing and we need to get that key bit of information from somebody, errm... which will lead to us finding her."

Now let's consider some further commentary from this same interview, not in the sequence in which it occurred necessarily, but one which has a certain explanatory power nonetheless (the first exchange at least is intact).

GM: "Yeah. I mean, clearly, we haven't got the key bit of information that will lead us to finding Madeleine but, I think, the way we try to, errr... think about it is, it's like a jigsaw."

NC: Do you have... do you have theories that you're working on?

GM: You know, clearly, the investigators are looking at all options and scenarios and that... that's the key thing; there are a host of scenarios here, errr... and there... in very many of those scenarios, Madeleine is alive in them.

'Very many' maybe - but not all. En passant, it is revealing that Gerry McCann should invite public acknowledgement of there being no evidence Madeleine is alive:

GM: We have contact with the Foreign Office, errm... from predominantly a consular basis. We do put requests in, that we do want to get as much information as possible and, I think, what we've asked, and will ask repeatedly, is: 'what evidence does anyone have to suggest that Madeleine is dead?' because we know of no evidence to suggest otherwise and we would like a public acknowledgment of that.

Our primary concern however is with 'keys.'

GM: We do want to remind people that, obviously, the key thing here is Madeleine.…... Errm... and we're in a... we're here, we're appealing, errr... we know we've been criticised for doing media. This is only the second appeal Kate and I have done in seven months, errr... so it's not like we're in... out there on a regular basis but we are in a very difficult situation because we believe someone - a member of the public - holds the key.

Attention is drawn again to 'the key', a topic accompanied not so much by a slip of the tongue as an irresistible intrusion by the brain (we'll allow Gerry McCann the benefit of the doubt on that score. Given his working environment, I imagine a colleague would have noticed by now if something were missing, but you never know). Early on in his reply Gerry suppresses an urge to say something which, despite his best efforts in that regard, forces its way through his mouth barely seconds later: "We're in a very difficult situation." And why are they in a 'difficult situation' exactly? "because…a member of the public…holds the key."

Now, this declaration merits a touch more than a moment's thought. According to the McCanns since 3 May 2007, a member of the public holds Madeleine, never mind a key. She is the one in a difficult situation. One can think of a host of separate descriptors for the parents of an abducted child, but the phrase 'difficult situation' would not, I suspect, leap to mind. Their situation is ostensibly straightforward. They are minus a child and presumably doing whatever they can to recover the missing person.

So, what is it about a member of the public's holding a key that represents a difficulty for the parents? The obvious, and naïve, answer would be: 'Person (a) is in possession of something that person (b) wants or requires', and that's all there is to it. Personally, I believe the significance to be rather more subtle, and that turning the key in question could open the door to a clearer understanding of earlier events in Praia da Luz. Perhaps the following remark (made again to Nicky Campbell) will at least put the key in the lock:

GM: "We don't know what's been done, what hasn't been done, who's been eliminated, who hasn't, what grounds they have been eliminated on."

If the intention is to isolate and identify an individual from a population P by a process of elimination, viz I = P - (P - 1) that's a lot of people to be eliminated before the individual is singled out. Gerry's statement reads rather as if he already has a sub-set of the population in mind. That sub-set, one imagines, would not number very many at all; it might include the McCanns themselves even, as well as that person holding the key. Thus the 'difficult situation' arises in consequence of the McCanns being members of a relatively small group of people, along with our mystery key holder. Members of the same set, it has to be acknowledged, must have something in common or they would not belong to the set in question. This, not the key, is at the root of the McCanns' 'difficulty.'

If we briefly consider the key as a metaphor, it represents information; information which the McCanns are desperate to acquire. This information in turn is presumed by the McCanns' media audience to reflect knowledge of Madeleine's whereabouts and, metaphorically speaking, could be in the hands of anyone either acquainted with or related to 'the abductor.' But looking anew at Kate McCann's reference to this very situation, it is noticeable that completion of the metaphorical allusion is something of an afterthought:

KM: "Madeleine's still missing and we need to get that key bit of information from somebody, errm... which will lead to us finding her."

So, 'that key bit of information' is not necessarily to be construed as a 'lead' connected with finding Madeleine.

To come to the point, the metaphor itself appears to be a red-herring. Revisiting now the very early statement of Gerry’s ("We truly believe that a member of the public holds the information to unlock where Madeleine is being kept."), if we invert the previous exchange (of information for a key) and now substitute the idea of a key for that of information, the claim then becomes 'a member of the public has personal access to wherever Madeleine is (or was).' Importantly, they might not be aware of it.

This is the McCanns' dilemma. They want, indeed need to know what this person knows of Madeleine's previous whereabouts, for as sure as eggs are eggs she's not there now, and she wasn't there when this householder reclaimed their key either. The individual in possession of 'the key' is no abductor, but the proprietor of an as yet unidentified domicile somewhere in the vicinity of Praia da Luz, where Madeleine was temporarily installed (Even Jane Tanner's 'Bundleman' had to abscond to a destination within walking distance, as there was absolutely no sign of any urgent vehicular departures from the scene). This is the person the McCanns are anxious to eliminate from their enquiries, and one only need postulate a little knowledge on their part to appreciate why, as we recall to mind Kate's answer to yet another question put to her during the interview for Spanish Broadcaster Antena 3:

Q: "...do you have full confidence in them?"

KM: "One hundred percent. One hundred percent."

(voice off camera – "of everyone?")

KM: "Of our friends, yes."

Clearly, someone outside of her immediate circle does not enjoy Kate's full confidence.

If this 'scenario' is to be entertained, one has further to consider how it might be possible, outside of breaking and entering, for a person to gain access to a foreign household; one that is not their own, and to which they do not have a key? According to recent pronouncements in Lisbon by Gerry McCann, "A thesis without evidence is meaningless." This statement is not universally true, but to avoid too great a compromise of the hypothesis under discussion, here are a few constituent aspects for which there is ample experiential evidence:

1. Enquiries purporting to be in respect of property purchases are typically put to estate agents and / or property developers.

2. Potential purchasers are usually invited to inspect a property or properties in which they express interest.

3. Depending on individual circumstances, inspection visits can be unaccompanied.

4. Where an inspection with a view to purchase is agreed and the agent's representative is not required to be present, a key is collected and returned.

See where this is going?

Robert Murat was a property developer who will have had contacts and knowledge with respect to vacant properties for sale or let in the PDL area. He has a reputation for being helpful and accommodating; instincts which led to his translation endeavours on behalf of the PJ.

If a key were borrowed, either from, or owing to the intervention of, Robert Murat, and returned in due course, Murat may not have met the borrower. The borrower however must at least have known of Murat in order to have made their enquiry in the first instance.

This framework, then, is capable of embracing the contradiction which stimulated this discussion initially: Robert Murat never having met Gerry McCann - Gerry McCann unprepared to comment upon whether or how he knew Robert Murat.

Hypothetically speaking, if Robert Murat had any reason to suspect he'd been deliberately misled into unwittingly aiding and abetting a crime, would he not be understandably circumspect if invited to discuss it subsequently? Just as hypothetically, if a vendor/lessor were later to discover that his/her property had been inappropriately used to facilitate an 'abduction,' might he or she not be at least a little interested in the detail of the trespass, especially if entry to their property were gained before 9.00 p.m.? And if we were Kate and Gerry McCann, would we not be oh-so-interested in that key bit of information, its custodian, and ensuring they were kept on-side? Small wonder that the search for 'Madeleine' continues.

With regards to keys of apartments or villas. An owner may be wanting to sell or rent out a property they no longer use, or only use in high season for a limited period. So the agent has the key, all quite normal in Spain and I would guess Portugal also.

I would be interested to see the website that RM had at around May 2007 as to what he advertised as available.

tigger, thank you SO much for posting these. You know how much I love my forensic linguistics!
That piece by Dr Martin Roberts has shaped a lot of my thinking re storage. I believe it happened pretty much in the way Dr Roberts explained.
All those references to 'keys'! A bit like Diane Webster's many 'errr's' and David Payne's 'you know, errr'. There is a reason why educated people speak in this manner, and that reason is: THEY ARE LYING!
Errr, you know, ummm, phew, it's like - these are all 'playing for time words' - meaningless linguistically, in effect just noises made while the brain is scrabbling around for the lie. What happens? The brain WILL leak the truth, however it can. Even those people 'technically good' at lying will slip up.
This is the reason why the McCanns only do interviews with pre-determined questions then rehearse, rehearse, rehearse. Caught off guard, their naughty brains would leak like sieves!

I just wish more people would realise the importance of forensic linguistics. It really works. I've heard tosh such as 'its dialect' 'its just a figure of speech' 'its a class thing' - all wrong. These are all taken into account.
I firmly believe, like you tigger, that Gerry slipped up in a spectacular fashion in Vanity Fair.
Thank you again, tigger - let's educate everyone on the importance of F.L! Dr Roberts on McCannfiles, or Statement Analysis, are good places for the uninitiated to start.

From the antenna 3 interview (Dr Roberts' analysis of media interviews)

It was in this same interview that GM struggled for a recollection of Madeleine on the 3rd May.

GM: "Just think of all the times... the nice times that we've had in our house, and in her playing, in the playroom with her... with her... the twins."

Look at the end of this sentence. Madeleine in the playroom with what? Her toys? Her guinea pig? No. With the twins. Why did GM fight desperately to articulate, or rather not to articulate, the phrase so obviously synonymous with 'the twins', i.e. 'her brother and sister.'? People strongly resist lying under interview, remember. Would this identification have been a lie despite GM's considering how lucky he was "to be the father of three children."?

What a strange thought this is to have arisen spontaneously whilst on a family holiday, emphasising, as it does, the three aspect? The notion of children is not qualified in any way. They are not 'fine', 'beautiful', 'adorable' – 'challenging' even. They are simply 'three.' And, taking up from the lack of any regret from the moment of Madeleine's disappearance, we can additionally observe that they were not three after all, but two plus one.

rainbow-fairy wrote:tigger, thank you SO much for posting these. You know how much I love my forensic linguistics!
That piece by Dr Martin Roberts has shaped a lot of my thinking re storage. I believe it happened pretty much in the way Dr Roberts explained.
All those references to 'keys'! A bit like Diane Webster's many 'errr's' and David Payne's 'you know, errr'. There is a reason why educated people speak in this manner, and that reason is: THEY ARE LYING!
Errr, you know, ummm, phew, it's like - these are all 'playing for time words' - meaningless linguistically, in effect just noises made while the brain is scrabbling around for the lie. What happens? The brain WILL leak the truth, however it can. Even those people 'technically good' at lying will slip up.
This is the reason why the McCanns only do interviews with pre-determined questions then rehearse, rehearse, rehearse. Caught off guard, their naughty brains would leak like sieves!

I just wish more people would realise the importance of forensic linguistics. It really works. I've heard tosh such as 'its dialect' 'its just a figure of speech' 'its a class thing' - all wrong. These are all taken into account.
I firmly believe, like you tigger, that Gerry slipped up in a spectacular fashion in Vanity Fair.
Thank you again, tigger - let's educate everyone on the importance of F.L! Dr Roberts on McCannfiles, or Statement Analysis, are good places for the uninitiated to start.

I agree with Forensic Linguistics too. Apart from the "erm, you know, sort of" ("sort of" was MO's mot du jour), I found when reading the rogatory interviews there is also to be observed the rhythm of their replies. The switch from bumbling and mumbling, buying time, uncertainty bordering on what struck me as selective amnesia to (almost) eloquence when asked what seemed to me rehearsed answers spoke volumes IMO. Lengthy answers too - straight off the tongue. Amazing!

And here's another nugget:

Kate tells of nightmare Daily Mirror

Lori Campbell In Praia Da Luz
09/09/2007

Shell-shocked Kate McCann has given a dramatic, impassioned interview to the Sunday Mirror to denounce claims that she killed her own daughter.

Breaking down in tears, distraught Kate said of the Portuguese police: "They want me to lie - I'm being framed.

"Police don't want a murder in Portugal and all the publicity about them not having paedophile laws here, so they're blaming us."

Kate was speaking on Friday morning - after her first police interrogation this week, but before police officially classed her a suspect in her daughter Madeleine's disappearance.

And she addressed head-on the extraordinary allegation that she accidentally killed Madeleine, then hid the body and engaged in a monumental cover-up to pretend she had been abducted.

Furious at the astounding claims, Kate, 39, said of the police: "They are basically saying, 'If you confess Madeleine had an accident, and that I panicked and hid the body in a bag for a month then got rid of it in a hire car, I'd get two or three years' suspended sentence.'

"I was even told, 'Think about it - Gerry would even be able to work again'. I was told that I could say I was stressed and I sedated Madeleine and it could be the best option for me. It is ridiculous. The worst nightmare".

Police don't wan't a murder etc? When exactly did Kate become acquainted with laws on paedophiles in Portugal? I'm pretty sure I saw something about it very early on in the affair. It's not the usual information one gathers for a holiday? Tennis, facilities, beach, creche - no law against paedophilia in Portugal. Which I do not believe to be true.

tigger wrote: And here's another nugget:

Kate tells of nightmare Daily Mirror

Lori Campbell In Praia Da Luz
09/09/2007

Shell-shocked Kate McCann has given a dramatic, impassioned interview to the Sunday Mirror to denounce claims that she killed her own daughter.

Breaking down in tears, distraught Kate said of the Portuguese police: "They want me to lie - I'm being framed.

"Police don't want a murder in Portugal and all the publicity about them not having paedophile laws here, so they're blaming us."

Kate was speaking on Friday morning - after her first police interrogation this week, but before police officially classed her a suspect in her daughter Madeleine's disappearance.

And she addressed head-on the extraordinary allegation that she accidentally killed Madeleine, then hid the body and engaged in a monumental cover-up to pretend she had been abducted.

Furious at the astounding claims, Kate, 39, said of the police: "They are basically saying, 'If you confess Madeleine had an accident, and that I panicked and hid the body in a bag for a month then got rid of it in a hire car, I'd get two or three years' suspended sentence.'

"I was even told, 'Think about it - Gerry would even be able to work again'. I was told that I could say I was stressed and I sedated Madeleine and it could be the best option for me. It is ridiculous. The worst nightmare".

Police don't wan't a murder etc? When exactly did Kate become acquainted with laws on paedophiles in Portugal? I'm pretty sure I saw something about it very early on in the affair. It's not the usual information one gathers for a holiday? Tennis, facilities, beach, creche - no law against paedophilia in Portugal. Which I do not believe to be true.

Murder? what murder?
How did they know the Police were looking at murder when they were adamant Maddie is unharmed, alive and findable?

So whose murder was kate refering to? the murder of Madeleine? How did she know Madeleine was murdered?
What made her think the Police were looking for her murderer or murderess. Is the blurring of her subconscious coming thru?
A freudian slip perhaps!
If she was referring to a pedophile having murdered Madeleine how would the Police know that since no abductor was traceable?
Is she conceding Maddie died in the apt but it is the work of a pedophile?
When would a stranger have time to do that and still cart away her body in the 3-min time frame?
Er...What about the cadaver scent that needs elapse of time to manifest when the mccanns were in and out of the apt checking every 20 min?

What has the lack of anti-padeophile law in Portugal got anything to do with Police focusing on them?
Surely those two are different things altogether. Precisely because there was no abductor that was why the Police looked inward and the conclusion is obvious.

A linguist analyst would have field days with kate's statement.

Quite so Alyoyo, what worries me most about this is that 'murder' and 'paedophiles' are in the same sentence, the same breath so to speak.
That set me thinking about Burgau, the weird photographs and Kate wanted her to be well cared for by a paedophile abductor.
Not very pleasant thoughts.

PeterMac wrote:Has Pat picked up on those interviews ?

Thanks, that's a good idea, I will gather together some more nuggets and post a link to this topic to Pat. As you know, indeed in your case, from experience, lying is extremely difficult.
As an example: when I was researching Kennedy's assassination some years ago, I found that Senator Connoly (whom Johnson had tried very hard to get into his own limo) shouted: 'They're going to kill us all'. Just one word too many and so revealing. 'all', it means to me that he knew about the plot.

I've also been watching old documentaries on internet of 'The secret war' with the redoubtable R.V. Jones. The way German officers were interrogated revealed at lot. Torture was never, ever used.

tigger wrote:Quite so Alyoyo, what worries me most about this is that 'murder' and 'paedophiles' are in the same sentence, the same breath so to speak.
That set me thinking about Burgau, the weird photographs and Kate wanted her to be well cared for by a paedophile abductor.
Not very pleasant thoughts.

Especially as there is *no evidence, that she has come to any harm*.

Mmmmm, the Portugese don't want a murder. Not, the Portugese don't want a death due to an accident, or the Portugese don't want a manslaughter case. No, a murder.

"No, every, we all went up and then we came back, well I think, when, if we had the video, what, what went on and we talked about there, is that we return, after we returned from the Millennium Restaurant we didn't really do much else, I think we just got our respective children to bed and then, and then probably went too, or not that much longer afterwards"

Here, Russell is answering for what they did on the first night in PDL. I think Russell really wants to be truthful, he's painstakingly gone back through the earlier statement that was put together and desperately wants to get it right. He's also very preoccupied with how he is perceived. But it's the first night of his holiday with his very good mates Dave & Matt, was best man at both their weddings yet he "thinks" that after dinner at 7pm or so they put the kids to bed and "probably" went themselves.

From Dr. Roberts' - 2011 outside the Lisbon court
And yet Kate may well have been there when 'it happened.' She intimated as much outside the Lisbon courthouse following the notorious injunction hearing. It was there that she chided the inquisitive reporter standing alongside. "I know more than you do. I know what I saw." (I doubt anyone would consider an empty bed to be particularly informative. While it announces its status, it does not explain it. Kate must therefore have seen more than this, and I do not mean open doors and/or windows). A dress rehearsal for being both truthful and scathing, you might say.

It's a good video, where Gerry gets very rattled, Kate again, looks comatose. Gerry tells us: 'It's about this girl', another remove from Madeleine, even more impersonal.

From the transcript of the Lorraine Kelly interview.

KM: But having said that I mean I think there’s just a small minority now [/b]and you know there’s a certain group out there who, this is their job really, is to pick on a vulnerable family and I’m sure after us they’ll move onto another family and...


I think it's a rather fast growing minority now and I really didn't know that I was employed to do this, certainly don't get paid for it!

tigger wrote:From the transcript of the Lorraine Kelly interview.

KM: But having said that I mean I think there’s just a small minority now [/b]and you know there’s a certain group out there who, this is their job really, is to pick on a vulnerable family and I’m sure after us they’ll move onto another family and...


I think it's a rather fast growing minority now and I really didn't know that I was employed to do this, certainly don't get paid for it!

If this is true, where is my paycheck? (Sorry, but I do not accept Paypal).

tigger wrote:From the transcript of the Lorraine Kelly interview.

KM: But having said that I mean I think there’s just a small minority now [/b]and you know there’s a certain group out there who, this is their job really, is to pick on a vulnerable family and I’m sure after us they’ll move onto another family and...


I think it's a rather fast growing minority now and I really didn't know that I was employed to do this, certainly don't get paid for it!

If this is her line of thinking then she must be relating it to the ones who are paid to troll for them

Shibboleth wrote:

tigger wrote:From the transcript of the Lorraine Kelly interview.

KM: But having said that I mean I think there’s just a small minority now [/b]and you know there’s a certain group out there who, this is their job really, is to pick on a vulnerable family and I’m sure after us they’ll move onto another family and...


I think it's a rather fast growing minority now and I really didn't know that I was employed to do this, certainly don't get paid for it!

If this is true, where is my paycheck? (Sorry, but I do not accept Paypal).

It's in the post with a free good quality wristband.

I am most offended that she thinks I am a paid McCann basher. I am a 69 year old retired nurse who has some common sense and can see through this pair in exactly the same way when my son and daughter lied to me. They though were not telling lies more serious than who ate the chocolate cake.

Just call me DOAP. disgusted old aged pensioner, oh and to add, an DOAP who sent her pension to help with their non existent search.

I am absolutely furious. How very dare she?

Nina wrote:I am most offended that she thinks I am a paid McCann basher. I am a 69 year old retired nurse who has some common sense and can see through this pair in exactly the same way when my son and daughter lied to me. They though were not telling lies more serious than who ate the chocolate cake.

Just call me DOAP. disgusted old aged pensioner, oh and to add, an DOAP who sent her pension to help with their non existent search.

I am absolutely furious. How very dare she?

What I'd like to know, whom does she think is paying us? She may have this payment idea in her head because the trolls and pros aren't working for nothing monitoring our sites? Another slip-up then.

From the transcript (mccannfiles) of the Australian interview in july 2011.
Quote (dr. Roberts' comments)
"Did you kill your daughter?" asks the lady journalist. Gerry answers:

"No. That's an emphatic 'no.' I mean the ludicrous thing is. Errm... what... I suppose... what's been purported from Portugal is that Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body. Well, when did she have the accident and died? Cos... the only time she was left unattended was when we were at dinner, so if she died then, how could we have disposed of... hidden her body when there was an immediate search. It's just nonsense. So. An' if she died when we were in the apartment or fell injured, why would we... why would we cover that up?"

KM (interjecting): "And it gets even more ludicrous, that we've obviously hidden her so incredibly well, where nobody's found her and we hid her (interviewer: 'incredibly well') so well that we then decided that we'd move her in the car which we hired weeks later and you know it's just ridiculous."

Let's take this a step at a time.

"Did you kill your daughter?"

"No. That's an emphatic 'no.'"

This is Gerry speaking don't forget. For any other innocent mortal 'Absolutely not' would have been a sufficient response. Not for Gerry though. Despite his subsequent claim, he gives a decidedly unemphatic answer - 'No.' What follows is meta-language, where he is describing his earlier articulation of a word and does not address the underlying semantics in any way. Incoherent and unnecessary expansion then takes us away from the original question, referencing what has been 'purported' in Portugal, namely that 'Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body.'

Next comes a cunning locking of the incident to a specific time frame, with the suggestion that Madeleine could only have had an accident when unattended. But Gerry slips up in questioning how it would have been possible for them to have disposed of Madeleine's body. In immediately substituting the phrase hidden her body he has already told us what in fact happened. Excitedly he goes on to ask why the parents should have covered up an accident. Why indeed.

It hardly comes as a surprise that Kate leaps in at this point, before Gerry's mouth can write any more bad cheques. She loses no time in elaborating upon the 'hide-and-seek' scenario played out that Thursday night, and the 'ludicrous' idea of their hire car being involved afterwards. But the damage has already been done.

The script, charitably outlined by Goncalo Amaral and fleshed out here by the McCanns, so as to exonerate themselves, depends entirely for its effect upon the premise that little Madeleine disappeared inexplicably that Thursday night; a premise that becomes less clear the closer it is examined. And Gerry is right. It wouldn't make sense to conceal an accident. Unquote.

tigger wrote:From the transcript of the Lorraine Kelly interview.

KM: But having said that I mean I think there’s just a small minority now [/b]and you know there’s a certain group out there who, this is their job really, is to pick on a vulnerable family and I’m sure after us they’ll move onto another family and...


I think it's a rather fast growing minority now and I really didn't know that I was employed to do this, certainly don't get paid for it!

Me neither, tigger
I would like to know who this supposed 'group' are who are paid and their job is to pick on vulnerable families? She must be talking about Social Services, the only group of people I know of in which some, not all pick on 'easy targets' who would never dream of hurting their children but are maybe different in some way, whilst leaving alone families where children are likely to be in peril - after all, weren't we told that a 'representative of Children's services visited the McCann home and told them what they did was within the realms of responsible parenting'???
Oh, no, silly me - she's talking about us! Those who can see through their lies!
Can she really be so deluded that she believes what she has just said? The 'paid' bit is bad enough, the 'our job' is worse still. My full-time job is parent to two beautiful boys with special needs. Trying to get justice for Madeleine is my hobby and I wouldn't accept ANY payment _(unlike the Pro keyboard-warriors)
I think the most deluded piece though is the 'small minority'. Oh Kate, my dear, we may be a 'small minority' who actually go deeply into the stinking rotting twisted statements and evidence, BUT that doesn't mean the 'bigger majority' BELIEVE YOU! I'm not saying this for effect, its true - I. DO NOT KNOW, PERSONALLY, ANYONE WHO BELEIVES THE MCCANNS TRULY DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO MADELEINE.
They just choose to not join or post on forums - the response I get mostly is 'they are guilty as sin but what can I do about it?' Well thank God we don't all think that way - but I must say we are A GROWING MINORITY and I think the McCanns are afraid - very afraid.

As an aside I see the lovely Lorraine has an MBE - for services to deceitful parents included?

Well yes, 'I don't believe you - because I can use a spoon!'

Isn't this whole thing a weird combination of slick politics by third parties and cretinous bumbling by the McCanns?
Most confusing, but I want to send anyone who abuses children and small animals (adults and big animals will have to fight back) to the 7th circle of hell.
Doing harm to living creatures who cannot defend themselves puts the aggressor outside the human race.