McCanns abduction theory goes out of the window!

Sorry about post name, er, .........not!
The McCanns , under oath, at Leveson yesterday did not ONCE mention/utter the words abducted or abduction in their entire sworn evidence in relation to their missing child Madeleine.
How very odd.
They have been shouting it from the roof tops for the last four years but were strangely reticent to say it under oath.
Do you think that if they had said 'Madeleine was abducted but we don't have a scintilla of evidence to support that' they would have been struck down by God?
WHY didn't they say it?
Because, is it possibly untrue and they swore on oath to tell the whole truth?
I'd imagine the omission of the 'A' word by both McCanns would not have gone unnoticed by Mr Amaral.

I don't have much time as i will be studying the transcript of their evidence but just a few snippets now

MRS McCANN: I don't know how many times I read "Body fluids in the car". And it gets repeated that often, it becomes fact.

All together now! The McCann mantra " Madeleine was abducted, Madeleine WAS abducted, MADELEINE WAS ABDUCTED"
AND it gets repeated that often, it becomes FACT!

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/49may11/SUN2_07_05_2011.htm

Kate explained: "Madeleine's very much part of the school. Every child knows what happened. (REALLY? all the children at the twins school KNOW what happened to Madeleine! Perhaps SY should interview them, as no one else seems to know. HOW do ALL the children KNOW? WHO told them? Cult leader Kate? Their parents? God forbid KM does an Adrian Prout and fesses up, what will that do to the all the children that KNOW?) The school have handled all the little incidents that have happened. They've been ready for it."
Kate went on:
But I think Sean and Amelie have handled it brilliantly.
"I am well aware, if God forbid we are still in this situation, that the pain and the anger and the upset will come as they get older and they realise what actually happened."
What actually happened?
Are you kidding Kate?
What ACTUALLY happened was that Sean and Amelie were left alone in the very same room as Madeleine and THEY could have been abducted, or worse, whilst Kand G were swigging wine out of sight at the Tapas!

Gerry: at Leveson
And if you go on the Internet now, which our nearly 7-year-old twins will be doing, most of these
allegations are still there and we will have to continue dealing with them going forward.

Allegations Gerry? or just FACTS from legally available released case files.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/1918275/Gerry-and-Kate-McCann-Full-interview-transcript.html
Gerry: I hope she's back with us before they're of an age when they're on the internet and searching. We will face difficult decisions down the line and we are not forcing information on them.
Difficult decisions?
I'd say!

Sean&Amelie.. 'it says here on the internet daddy that we were alone with Madeleine, in an unlocked apartment, out of your sight, while you and mummy were having 'me time' Does that mean you put us in danger of being abducted or worse?'

Gerry....Well, erm, er, um... don't believe everything you read children!

Still, perhaps they could do a new 'carry on' film..................'Carry on LYING' (to raise money for their FUN(d))

Gerry at Leveson
'Within the first week of being back, we had appointed solicitors,Kingsley Napley, and Angus McBride, (who defended convicted paedophile Chris Langham) who is one of the solicitors who represented us at that time, he thought it was very important that he would -- we should try and modify the content of the press articles

To conceal the FACT that he (McBride) defended a paedophile (?) and we were telling the whole world our daughter was 'abducted ' by a paedophile. We retained Angus immediately to represent us!
Strange but true.
Employed a man who defended a paedophile when your daughter has been 'abducted by paedophiles'!
Classy!
More later.

Very good reading.


I will await a further update from you...I, myself, couldn't stomach watching Kate mccanns face for over 2 hours and Gerry mccann looking as if he was on tenderhooks every time she opened her mouth.

So McCann didn't mention Abduction, eh?

No matter, it definitely did happen, as Justice Leveson referred to it as if it were established fact.

Perhaps he believes everything he reads in the Newspapers!

Apparently even Hugh Grant knows she’s been abducted.

Why was Kate allowed to read fom a script?

Iris wrote:Why was Kate allowed to read fom a script?

It seems that they had a copy of their statement(s) in front of them because when they were being questioned, the interviewer kept referring to paragraphs in the statement(s) and Gerry is seen rifling through to find them. JK Rowling appears to have been doing the same thing as she had a similar ring bound folder in front of her.

The key difference is that JK was credible.

AnnaEsse wrote:

Iris wrote:Why was Kate allowed to read fom a script?

It seems that they had a copy of their statement(s) in front of them because when they were being questioned, the interviewer kept referring to paragraphs in the statement(s) and Gerry is seen rifling through to find them. JK Rowling appears to have been doing the same thing as she had a similar ring bound folder in front of her.

How handy to be permitted to read from an aid-memoir to keep their stories straight... Three cheers for the good old British justice system where no one is held to be above the law.
Hip hip, Hip hip, Hip hip,
Is it just me or could there be a nasty stench emanating from the enquiry as far as a certain pair of sainted beings are concerned?
I've always subscribed to the 'conspiracy theory' as many of you may remember from previous posts. This quoting from scriptures tends to accommodate this theory.

malena stool wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Iris wrote:Why was Kate allowed to read fom a script?

It seems that they had a copy of their statement(s) in front of them because when they were being questioned, the interviewer kept referring to paragraphs in the statement(s) and Gerry is seen rifling through to find them. JK Rowling appears to have been doing the same thing as she had a similar ring bound folder in front of her.

How handy to be permitted to read from an aid-memoir to keep their stories straight... Three cheers for the good old British justice system where no one is held to be above the law.
Hip hip, Hip hip, Hip hip,
Is it just me or could there be a nasty stench emanating from the enquiry as far as a certain pair of sainted beings are concerned?
I've always subscribed to the 'conspiracy theory' as many of you may remember from previous posts. This quoting from scriptures tends to accommodate this theory.

Yep! They sat down, probably for quite some time, and got their statements just word perfect. Then they were given copies and allowed to use them in giving evidence. Haven't ever heard of that before when people were giving sworn statements.

Anna, before I retired I frequently used to give "Expert Evidence" within my field (obviously!) to Inquests and Criminal Trials and was often permitted to read from, or refer to, Statements I had produced.

As the initial events had often taken place months, if not years before, and the detail involved was significant and crucial, it is a perfectly proper way to give Evidence subject to approval by the Judge/Coroner/Advocates.

Of course, the Oath is the most important thing.

AnnaEsse wrote:

malena stool wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Iris wrote:Why was Kate allowed to read fom a script?

It seems that they had a copy of their statement(s) in front of them because when they were being questioned, the interviewer kept referring to paragraphs in the statement(s) and Gerry is seen rifling through to find them. JK Rowling appears to have been doing the same thing as she had a similar ring bound folder in front of her.

How handy to be permitted to read from an aid-memoir to keep their stories straight... Three cheers for the good old British justice system where no one is held to be above the law.
Hip hip, Hip hip, Hip hip,
Is it just me or could there be a nasty stench emanating from the enquiry as far as a certain pair of sainted beings are concerned?
I've always subscribed to the 'conspiracy theory' as many of you may remember from previous posts. This quoting from scriptures tends to accommodate this theory.

Yep! They sat down, probably for quite some time, and got their statements just word perfect. Then they were given copies and allowed to use them in giving evidence. Haven't ever heard of that before when people were giving sworn statements.

In fairness that is the format of this inquiry with its specific remit. Witnesses submit a written statement on press relationships and the personal appearance is only in respect of that written statement. Its not a trial (although there are probably a few tabloid editors who are thinking otherwise).

Ann diamond has said that she is scared off retribution when she gives evidence and is now thinking off not naming names when she does so.


Kate......Gerry.....you reading this..

Chris wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

malena stool wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Iris wrote:Why was Kate allowed to read fom a script?

It seems that they had a copy of their statement(s) in front of them because when they were being questioned, the interviewer kept referring to paragraphs in the statement(s) and Gerry is seen rifling through to find them. JK Rowling appears to have been doing the same thing as she had a similar ring bound folder in front of her.

How handy to be permitted to read from an aid-memoir to keep their stories straight... Three cheers for the good old British justice system where no one is held to be above the law.
Hip hip, Hip hip, Hip hip,
Is it just me or could there be a nasty stench emanating from the enquiry as far as a certain pair of sainted beings are concerned?
I've always subscribed to the 'conspiracy theory' as many of you may remember from previous posts. This quoting from scriptures tends to accommodate this theory.

Yep! They sat down, probably for quite some time, and got their statements just word perfect. Then they were given copies and allowed to use them in giving evidence. Haven't ever heard of that before when people were giving sworn statements.

In fairness that is the format of this inquiry with its specific remit. Witnesses submit a written statement on press relationships and the personal appearance is only in respect of that written statement. Its not a trial (although there are probably a few tabloid editors who are thinking otherwise).

As you rightly point out Chris it is not a trial but, to my way of thinking each person attending the enquiry should make an individual statement as to their reflections and not read from a script. There has already been a similar occurrence permitted when their Tapas buddies were allowed to read each others statements by LP.
They, as individuals have constantly failed to tell the same tale twice in succession, being forced to rely on Mitchell to cover their appalling presentations, hence the scripted giving of evidence.... In my opinion their very appearance on any investigative panel, committee or chat show following the public admission of leaving their children alone makes a mockery of our child protection and judicial system.

malena stool wrote:As you rightly point out Chris it is not a trial but, to my way of thinking each person attending the enquiry should make an individual statement as to their reflections and not read from a script. There has already been a similar occurrence permitted when their Tapas buddies were allowed to read each others statements by LP.
They, as individuals have constantly failed to tell the same tale twice in succession, being forced to rely on Mitchell to cover their appalling presentations, hence the scripted giving of evidence.... In my opinion their very appearance on any investigative panel, committee or chat show following the public admission of leaving their children alone makes a mockery of our child protection and judicial system.

I understand your point but Leveson is "hearing" written submissions ie the oral evidence is merely around what has previously been submitted with witnesses having the opportunity to expand on those submissions. The only real deviation from the written statements is where witnesses have been asked to suggest how the current systems could change. Some witnesses have been more useful than others in that respect. The evidence presented is not being "cross-examined" as such although some of the questions asked are as a result of objections raised by counsel for the various press organisations. I presume this lack of challenge is simply that the press organisations have a right of reply. In the McCs case they had a fairly easy task simply because some of the press reporting was absurd but of course much of that complained about was written before the release of the police files. By the time the files were released at least three organisations had been C-Red or so it appears from the evidence presented. What might be interesting is if the media outlets respond to the claims of press intrusion since they will have information on the extent to which the media has been used. My guess though is they won't because I wouldn't be surprised if there were "deals" on story placement ie you give us stories, we give you reasonable coverage.

Chris wrote:

malena stool wrote:As you rightly point out Chris it is not a trial but, to my way of thinking each person attending the enquiry should make an individual statement as to their reflections and not read from a script. There has already been a similar occurrence permitted when their Tapas buddies were allowed to read each others statements by LP.
They, as individuals have constantly failed to tell the same tale twice in succession, being forced to rely on Mitchell to cover their appalling presentations, hence the scripted giving of evidence.... In my opinion their very appearance on any investigative panel, committee or chat show following the public admission of leaving their children alone makes a mockery of our child protection and judicial system.

I understand your point but Leveson is "hearing" written submissions ie the oral evidence is merely around what has previously been submitted with witnesses having the opportunity to expand on those submissions. The only real deviation from the written statements is where witnesses have been asked to suggest how the current systems could change. Some witnesses have been more useful than others in that respect. The evidence presented is not being "cross-examined" as such although some of the questions asked are as a result of objections raised by counsel for the various press organisations. I presume this lack of challenge is simply that the press organisations have a right of reply. In the McCs case they had a fairly easy task simply because some of the press reporting was absurd but of course much of that complained about was written before the release of the police files. By the time the files were released at least three organisations had been C-Red or so it appears from the evidence presented. What might be interesting is if the media outlets respond to the claims of press intrusion since they will have information on the extent to which the media has been used. My guess though is they won't because I wouldn't be surprised if there were "deals" on story placement ie you give us stories, we give you reasonable coverage.

Thanks Chris.