Is Kate on self destruct mode?

Again, stumbled on this site, interesting times ahead me thinks.
http://themurdochempireanditsnestofvipers.blogspot.com/2011/11/pressreform-leveson-kate-mccann-has.html?spref=tw

please delete if it has been discussed before.

Hi Marksman, It"s a good article , but I just wonder if , because this is a Civil Case of Libel, with all the information we have , would any of it be allowed as evidence.?

Could Kate"s Diaries be used where she at one time suspects Madeleine is dead? Will the Judges rule on probability since neither side can prove
they are right? Certainly the McCanns claim that the whole Family"s health was affected by Amaral"s book will be rejected.

If the mccanns have stated that his book defames them and what he has said is a lie then mr amaral will have to show evidence that it is not true....and the fact that it made their family Ill then they will have to show evidence that it did.



They also said that being made arquido stopped them searching....how?


They could come and go a where they wanted including going to canada.....so that was bullshit.....that is proof that they could search if they wanted too but they chose to let the PI's do that, which they did.

kitti wrote:If the mccanns have stated that his book defames them and what he has said is a lie then mr amaral will have to show evidence that it is not true....and the fact that it made their family Ill then they will have to show evidence that it did.



They also said that being made arquido stopped them searching....how?


They could come and go a where they wanted including going to canada.....so that was bullshit.....that is proof that they could search if they wanted too but they chose to let the PI's do that, which they did.

Morning kitti, they set up a Company in 12 days to receive funds and employed Metodo 3 to search, even though a secondary search is
forbidden under Portugese Law apparently Ribiero turned a blind eye. They also had Kennedy sit in on an interview between the Detective
from Metodo and the PJ, he went to Ireland to interview the Smiths and even flew his private plane to Morocco and offered to pay a young Tour Guide to pass on any information he might learn.

kitti wrote:If the mccanns have stated that his book defames them and what he has said is a lie then mr amaral will have to show evidence that it is not true....and the fact that it made their family Ill then they will have to show evidence that it did.



They also said that being made arquido stopped them searching....how?


They could come and go a where they wanted including going to canada.....so that was bullshit.....that is proof that they could search if they wanted too but they chose to let the PI's do that, which they did.

I can't see how the McCanns can say this book defames them. The appeals judge overturned the ban of the book and the Supreme Judge upheld the overturning of the ban. If there was anything in the book that defamed the McCanns, the book would have stayed permanently banned. The McCanns would be almost certain to win their libel case against Mr Amaral and walk away with his house and most of his money.

The McCanns also read the book when it first came out and when they were asked to comment on the book, they said the book was a load of rubbish. They didn't try to get the book banned, until much later, when the book became a best seller. In my opinion, the McCanns waited until they thought that Goncalo Amaral had amassed a fair amount of money, that is when they decided to sue.

The McCanns and Isabel Duarte are still in contempt of court, for disobeying the Supreme Judge's order to return those 7500 books they have in their possession. They could be facing a 5yr jail sentence if the case goes to court, surely that must have an effect on their forthcoming libel case in February.

E1.2 million claimed for "hindering the search for Madeleiene by suggesting she is dead" and the affect his book had on the health of the Family , including 4 yr old twins(can you believe this!!!) is quite excessive, even by U.K. payments for libel . Expect more adverse publicity about the
PJ in the run up to the Trial.

Panda wrote:E1.2 million claimed for "hindering the search for Madeleiene by suggesting she is dead" and the affect his book had on the health of the Family , including 4 yr old twins(can you believe this!!!) is quite excessive, even by U.K. payments for libel . Expect more adverse publicity about the
PJ in the run up to the Trial.

Hi Panda, I agree with everything you have said in your post. The McCanns didn't give a stuff about the health and of their 3 children, when they were leaving them unsupervised on that so called family holiday. There is no doubt about it, the McCanns have used Madeleine as a cash cow for the past 4yrs and they are about to do the same with the twins.

The McCanns have got to be two of the vilest people I have ever heard of. They know that whatever happened to Madeleine and whatever suffering she endured was down to them, but they don't care. They now want Goncalo Amaral's home and his money. They don't care that he and his wife, along with their young children, will be homeless and penniless.

I have just emailed Joana Morais to ask her if she is aware of the Leveson phone hacking inquiry. I told her about the McCanns having a role in this inquiry and also about Kate's diary. I asked her if she would take a look at the inquiry and pass on any information to Goncalo Amaral, that could help him, in the McCanns forthcoming libel case against him. He is going to need all the help he can get.

I'm just wondering if Kate has become a 'loose canon' and is suffering
emotionally from this whole charade?
Guilt can become its own mental policeman and I would suggest that
Kate's book holds many hints of the anguish and guilt she feels and is expressing
them with an enigmatic sexual delivery. (page 129)
The 'mentally raped' description further fuels this possibility as a sublimative
message she yearns to get out.
Kate's demand to see a priest just 3 hours after Maddie went 'missing' may
also be a sign that she is not, or was not then, wholeheartedly behind a plot,
or a scheme to make a lifestyle based on her missing daughter's fate.
It is interesting that she appears now to be alone, with a few exceptions
when Gerry describes her mental state, but is it all rosey in the garden?
I'm just pondering and wondering if something big is on the horizon.
All just my opinion of course.

The mccanns won't win the libel case as what mr amaral wrote in the book is the same findings that is in the files.

Panda wrote:E1.2 million claimed for "hindering the search for Madeleiene by suggesting she is dead" and the affect his book had on the health of the Family , including 4 yr old twins(can you believe this!!!) is quite excessive, even by U.K. payments for libel . Expect more adverse publicity about the
PJ in the run up to the Trial.

Afternoon Panda!

I worry about the 'review' and the timing of the release of any findings. Thinking about the outcome of the 'review' the Met can hardly come out and say they have spent £3m and cannot find anything new. By doing so they give credibility to the findings of the PJ and the establishment just will not have that. So they will have to come out with something 'new' which of course then would discredit the PJ and Amaral. Knowing how cunning the TM campaign is being run - it would not surprise me if this happened.

You really think that 30 police officers are going to sift through thousands off files.....noo

It would take them years to go through everything and don't forget it took the pj neally a year to do this


If the mccanns come up with something before the trial it will be hype and spin.

Panda wrote:E1.2 million claimed for "hindering the search for Madeleiene by suggesting she is dead" and the affect his book had on the health of the Family , including 4 yr old twins(can you believe this!!!) is quite excessive, even by U.K. payments for libel . Expect more adverse publicity about the
PJ in the run up to the Trial.

Are the McCanns going to sue the Attourney General for saying this in his legal summary.

"it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely."

I'm sure this article has been up for discussion before but I think
its quite disturbing and sinister.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3573678/I-fear-this-outfit-may-have-led-to-Madeleine-kidnap.html

NoStone wrote:

Panda wrote:E1.2 million claimed for "hindering the search for Madeleiene by suggesting she is dead" and the affect his book had on the health of the Family , including 4 yr old twins(can you believe this!!!) is quite excessive, even by U.K. payments for libel . Expect more adverse publicity about the
PJ in the run up to the Trial.

Afternoon Panda!

I worry about the 'review' and the timing of the release of any findings. Thinking about the outcome of the 'review' the Met can hardly come out and say they have spent £3m and cannot find anything new. By doing so they give credibility to the findings of the PJ and the establishment just will not have that. So they will have to come out with something 'new' which of course then would discredit the PJ and Amaral. Knowing how cunning the TM campaign is being run - it would not surprise me if this happened.

It"s dark now so must be evening, so Good Evening NoStone,

The SY Police have a remit to review only, not investigate, so all they will do is look for possible sightings or information from the public which the PJ did not chase up and I think they will find the PJ WAS diligent and had to cope with a lot from the McCanns who have made false claims IMO. Yes, they can say they found nothing, which will embarass Cameron and the McCanns. Remember, the case is SHELVED,
not CLOSED so the PJ have said they will investigate any any new credible leads.

gillyspot wrote:

Panda wrote:E1.2 million claimed for "hindering the search for Madeleiene by suggesting she is dead" and the affect his book had on the health of the Family , including 4 yr old twins(can you believe this!!!) is quite excessive, even by U.K. payments for libel . Expect more adverse publicity about the
PJ in the run up to the Trial.

Are the McCanns going to sue the Attourney General for saying this in his legal summary.

"it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely."

Is this the Portugese summing up you are quoting gillyspot.? After being given the runaround by the McCanns and their Friends , declining
to attend a recon, having a secondary search for Madeleine, non-co-operation from the Home office re the request for Bank Statements, having Stuart Prior blatantly tell the Tapas 7 "no useful purpose would be served by having a recon", I would think the Attorney General
drew the right conclusion.,

marxman wrote:I'm sure this article has been up for discussion before but I think
its quite disturbing and sinister.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3573678/I-fear-this-outfit-may-have-led-to-Madeleine-kidnap.html

Evening marxman,
The fact that Lazzerelli edited and abridged this areicle is enough for you to know the agony would be piled on. To get a truer picture of Kate"s behaviour , look in the mcannfiles link quoted in the "Kate"s Diary " thread, it says a lot about her, quite happy to take part in Press arranged
photoshoot, see the Pope have conversations with the Blairs and Gordon Brown , moan about the twins not sleeping well. If they were my twins and their sister had gone missing, I would have comforted them all night and be glad they were alive, not moan that they didn"t settle
until 9.30pm. It"s only later that Kate really thinks of Madeleine , Plkease take time to read it right through , it makes interesting reading.

I would be delighted if kate mccann would self destruct as she is a scheming narcissist and deserves no less.The twins then may have a chance to grow up to be relatively normal,but sadly i suspect the damage is already done.

"The narcissist keeps dreaming, hoping, planning, conspiring, scheming and fighting all his/her life. As far as they are concerned, reality, with its sobering feedback, does not exist. He/she occupies a world of their own where hope springs eternal. It is a universe of recurrent serendipity, inevitable fortuity, auspiciousness, lucky chances and coincidences, no downs and uplifting ups. It is an unpredictable, titillating, and exciting world. The narcissist may feel bored for long stretches of time but only because they can't wait for the ultimate thrill."

marxman wrote:I'm sure this article has been up for discussion before but I think
its quite disturbing and sinister.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3573678/I-fear-this-outfit-may-have-led-to-Madeleine-kidnap.html

Yes it is sinister imo as Kate McCann feels the outfit that Madeleine wore by the pool made her attractive to someone else. So does Kate think this outfit is a paedophiles fantasy?

Bobsy wrote:

marxman wrote:I'm sure this article has been up for discussion before but I think
its quite disturbing and sinister.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3573678/I-fear-this-outfit-may-have-led-to-Madeleine-kidnap.html

Yes it is sinister imo as Kate McCann feels the outfit that Madeleine wore by the pool made her attractive to someone else. So does Kate think this outfit is a paedophiles fantasy?

The real disturbing part of that article is:

"At breakfast time on the Thursday, Madeleine had a question for us. "Why didn't you come when Sean and I cried last night?"

We were puzzled. Did she mean when they were having their bath? we asked her. Or just after they'd gone to bed? "

So Sean and Madeleine were bathing together alone and crying there too? I'm not saying they bathed totally alone but where were K&G then? You have two (or 3) kids in the bath together you don't leave the bathroom until they're all out. Are we led to believe one or both parents were running around after Amelie?

But then, Madeleine at nearly 4 was (IMO) old enough to get out of the bath alone so it doesn't make sense she would stay and cry.

So... what about this bath crying episode, nothing is mentioned without reason why was Maddie crying in the bath?

Wonder if you-know-who was visiting that night too.

margaret wrote:

Bobsy wrote:

marxman wrote:I'm sure this article has been up for discussion before but I think
its quite disturbing and sinister.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3573678/I-fear-this-outfit-may-have-led-to-Madeleine-kidnap.html

Yes it is sinister imo as Kate McCann feels the outfit that Madeleine wore by the pool made her attractive to someone else. So does Kate think this outfit is a paedophiles fantasy?

The real disturbing part of that article is:

"At breakfast time on the Thursday, Madeleine had a question for us. "Why didn't you come when Sean and I cried last night?"

We were puzzled. Did she mean when they were having their bath? we asked her. Or just after they'd gone to bed? "

So Sean and Madeleine were bathing together alone and crying there too? I'm not saying they bathed totally alone but where were K&G then? You have two (or 3) kids in the bath together you don't leave the bathroom until they're all out. Are we led to believe one or both parents were running around after Amelie?

But then, Madeleine at nearly 4 was (IMO) old enough to get out of the bath alone so it doesn't make sense she would stay and cry.

So... what about this bath crying episode, nothing is mentioned without reason why was Maddie crying in the bath?

Wonder if you-know-who was visiting that night too.

Or was David Payne or one of the other fathers bathing the children the same as Katherina Gaspar said in her statement regarding their previous holiday.

marxman wrote:Again, stumbled on this site, interesting times ahead me thinks.
http://themurdochempireanditsnestofvipers.blogspot.com/2011/11/pressreform-leveson-kate-mccann-has.html?spref=tw

please delete if it has been discussed before.

Back to this bit from the blog you linked to....

Before the book “Truth of the Lie” was printed, PJ inspector Paulo Pereira Cristóvao had already written “The Star of Madeleine”, a book in which he relates the investigation and maintains theories very similar to those defended by Amaral. This book also had successful sales.

Do you know l'd never heard of this book. Is Cristovao being sued by the Mcs too? If not why not?

gillyspot wrote:

margaret wrote:

Bobsy wrote:

marxman wrote:I'm sure this article has been up for discussion before but I think
its quite disturbing and sinister.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3573678/I-fear-this-outfit-may-have-led-to-Madeleine-kidnap.html

Yes it is sinister imo as Kate McCann feels the outfit that Madeleine wore by the pool made her attractive to someone else. So does Kate think this outfit is a paedophiles fantasy?

The real disturbing part of that article is:

"At breakfast time on the Thursday, Madeleine had a question for us. "Why didn't you come when Sean and I cried last night?"

We were puzzled. Did she mean when they were having their bath? we asked her. Or just after they'd gone to bed? "

So Sean and Madeleine were bathing together alone and crying there too? I'm not saying they bathed totally alone but where were K&G then? You have two (or 3) kids in the bath together you don't leave the bathroom until they're all out. Are we led to believe one or both parents were running around after Amelie?

But then, Madeleine at nearly 4 was (IMO) old enough to get out of the bath alone so it doesn't make sense she would stay and cry.

So... what about this bath crying episode, nothing is mentioned without reason why was Maddie crying in the bath?

Wonder if you-know-who was visiting that night too.

Or was David Payne or one of the other fathers bathing the children the same as Katherina Gaspar said in her statement regarding their previous holiday.

That's exactly who l meant.

margaret wrote:

gillyspot wrote:

margaret wrote:

Bobsy wrote:

marxman wrote:I'm sure this article has been up for discussion before but I think
its quite disturbing and sinister.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3573678/I-fear-this-outfit-may-have-led-to-Madeleine-kidnap.html

Yes it is sinister imo as Kate McCann feels the outfit that Madeleine wore by the pool made her attractive to someone else. So does Kate think this outfit is a paedophiles fantasy?

The real disturbing part of that article is:

"At breakfast time on the Thursday, Madeleine had a question for us. "Why didn't you come when Sean and I cried last night?"

We were puzzled. Did she mean when they were having their bath? we asked her. Or just after they'd gone to bed? "

So Sean and Madeleine were bathing together alone and crying there too? I'm not saying they bathed totally alone but where were K&G then? You have two (or 3) kids in the bath together you don't leave the bathroom until they're all out. Are we led to believe one or both parents were running around after Amelie?

But then, Madeleine at nearly 4 was (IMO) old enough to get out of the bath alone so it doesn't make sense she would stay and cry.

So... what about this bath crying episode, nothing is mentioned without reason why was Maddie crying in the bath?

Wonder if you-know-who was visiting that night too.

Or was David Payne or one of the other fathers bathing the children the same as Katherina Gaspar said in her statement regarding their previous holiday.

That's exactly who l meant.

I think the McCanns have told so many lies that they have forgotten what they said back in 2007. For almost 12 months each time the McCanns were asked about the reports of the children crying, the McCanns said they were untrue. They said once asleep their children never woke up.

In an interview which was televised around the time of the 1st anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance, Kate McCann revealed that on the morning of the evening Madeleine disappeared, Madeleine said to her "Where were you, when me and Sean woke up. We cried for you and you never came." Kate and Gerry said they dismissed what Madeleine said, because she carried on playing. She then said they nearly didn't go out, but decided they would and they would increase their checks on the children to every 30 minutes.

Around the 4th anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance, the McCanns spoke about the incident. They said they thought Madeleine was talking about the previous evening when Sean and Amalie woke up and cried. They also said that they believe the abductor was in the children's bedroom when the children woke up and that was the reason they cried. They had obviously forgotten that they said they dismissed what Madeleine said 4yrs previously.

I can quite believe Sean and Amalie woke up and cried the previous evening to the one Madeleine was supposedly talking about, because of the reports of the children crying. I did believe that Madeleine told them what she did, even though I found it ironic that she should disappear hours later. However after I heard the McCanns tell a completely different story to the one they told in May 2008, I do not believe the incident ever happened. They never mentioned Sean and Amalie crying in 2008 and I could be wrong, but I don't recall them mentioning the abductor being in the children's bedroom, when Madeleine and Sean woke up. I do remember Gerry saying that he believed the abductor was hiding in the apartment when he made his one and only check on the children.

I don't know if this question has been raised before but what is the view of other posters on letting other people bathe one's children unsupervised? It certainly isn't something I would ever have thought of, no matter how close the friends might be. There were a couple of occasions when my son played in the bath at a friend's house but I was present. He's now 33 by the way so makes his own arrangements! It seems very bizarre to me but if other posters disagree I'll think again.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:I don't know if this question has been raised before but what is the view of other posters on letting other people bathe one's children unsupervised? It certainly isn't something I would ever have thought of, no matter how close the friends might be. There were a couple of occasions when my son played in the bath at a friend's house but I was present. He's now 33 by the way so makes his own arrangements! It seems very bizarre to me but if other posters disagree I'll think again.

This is one criticism I have against Katherine Gaspar. After the incident where she though David Payne was making those gestures about Madeleine to Gerry, she told her husband not to leave David Payne alone when he was bathing their daughter. What on earth was David Payne doing bathing the Gaspars daughter in the first place and why did Mrs Gaspar allow David Payne to carry on bathing her daughter after the gesture incident?

By the way, unless our children were staying with their grandparents, the only person who ever bathed our children apart from myself, was my husband.