'Disposing of a child's body' Gerry McCann

“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.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/02/mccanns200802

This observation of Gerry's has always bothered me. Basically, it sounds to me like he's saying 'If I tell you what happened, I'm looking at 2 years in prison. At that rate, I might as well just confess to disposing of a child's body - it's the same jail time'.

Or not? Is there some other way of interpreting this statement? I just can't reconcile how the two ideas are connected in his head? The first is the punishment for breaking Portuguese judicial secrecy. Ok, that makes sense - he'd be thinking about that, given he's been warned not to and had the consequences of that explained to him. But why's he thinking about the crime of disposal of a child's body and the sentence for that? Is it because he's been accused of it by the police? One would imagine that yes, he was, when he was being interviewed as an arguido (and presumably not being accused of causing the death of said child). But if he's innocent of that crime, he's surely not in any danger of facing 2 years in prison - so why's he even thinking about it?

Hello Wintabells!

It could be that Gerry was aware of the cumulative sentences that could accure, so many years for abandonment of a child leading to death, 2 years for concealing a body (on top of the 15 years for fraud that is!) etc etc

Got to say that is one hell of a good article,definitely worth a read .And when you read it over it just leaves you with the conclusion the mccanns are one hell of a weird family who have absolutely no understanding at all that they've done anything wrong.

“I’m not going to fucking lie!” Kate barked. The next day she stopped answering a fair number of police questions. “She had already answered some of them,” says Trish. “And her lawyer told her she didn’t have to answer questions.”

Good bit about Murat !............

There, I learn on good authority, three of the Tapas Nine were put into a room with Murat, and each of them identified him as a man they’d seen hanging about the resort in the hours after Madeleine vanished. One of the witnesses, Fiona Payne, told police she’d actually seen him behind the McCanns’ villa that night, and recalled his “dodgy eye.” Another, Russell O’Brien, claimed Murat had said he spoke Portuguese as well as English, which is in fact the case. The McCann friends were not alone in their suspicions. By late December it emerged that three other
witnesses claimed to have seen Murat near the McCanns’ villa apartment the night of the abduction.

This is a good bitas well.kate still not wanting to go back and look after her kids properly then !....

Kate, however, cannot help replaying the circumstances that led to the child’s disappearance—the work, she is certain, of a mysterious abductor. “I will tell you what I haven’t told anyone,” says Jon Corner, a family friend. “In August, I was with Kate in Portugal. She told me, ‘I wish I could roll back time and go back to the day before Madeleine was abducted. I would slow down time. I would get a really good look around and have a really good think. And I’d think: Where are you? Who are you? Who is secretly watching my family? Because someone was watching my family very, very carefully. And taking notes.’ ”

This is a good quote...............

“The McCanns have completely changed the way we now look for missing children—it used to be you go to the police; now it means you go to the media, to celebrities,” says a disapproving Scotland Yard specialist in abused children.

Infact i think this is the best article i have read.

There have been a huge number of theories in the media. But what I want to know is—who told them all that?”

A theory is something based on evidence and yet Gerry wonders who told them that? Desperation to know what the police have or may have been saying to people.

I will tell you what I haven’t told anyone,” says Jon Corner, a family friend. “In August, I was with Kate in Portugal. She told me, ‘I wish I could roll back time and go back to the day before Madeleine was abducted. I would slow down time. I would get a really good look around and have a really good think. And I’d think: Where are you? Who are you? Who is secretly watching my family? Because someone was watching my family very, very carefully. And taking notes.’ ”

Completely barking. You wouldn't hold your daughter close knowing what unfolded? or perhaps decide not to go out on the lash? No... you'd look for someone to blame. Beggars belief.

At his side while we talk is Clarence Mitchell, a voluble former government media analyst and BBC reporter, handpicked by Gerry to be the latest in a line of spokesmen. On October 17, Mitchell spoke at Coventry University. His topic: “Missing Madeleine McCann: The Perfect PR Campaign.”

Sick, sick, SICK do you Mitchell ever stop to think of the child behind it all, Madeleine??

It is a very revealing interview but l can't stomach anymore.

Yes,you could pick your way through so much of that,and the more you read it the more you know the mccanns are dodgy.

“It seems to be the same sentence as disposing of a child’s body.”

So is he saying Kate accidentally killed Madeleine and his only involvement was in the disposal? Very telling imo!

“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.

Thats exactly what i see as well.

Wintabells wrote:My theory goes like this: Whatever happened to change Madeleine from a living child to a 'body' was not his doing. Disposal, however, was.

Yes, that 's about the likely size of it.

But he still bears responsibility, alongside Healy, for the events leading up to the need for "disposal" as he was patently complicit in the "abandonment".

The End Is Nigh wrote:

Wintabells wrote:My theory goes like this: Whatever happened to change Madeleine from a living child to a 'body' was not his doing. Disposal, however, was.

Yes, that 's about the likely size of it.

But he still bears responsibility, alongside Healy, for the events leading up to the need for "disposal" as he was patently complicit in the "abandonment".

Not sure there was abandonment. Demise may well have happened pre 8.30pm. The rest was creating an alibi. ''And, errm... without going into too much detail, errr... about the circumstances, we were with a large group of people, errm... and, you know, there is absolutely no way Kate and I are involved in this abduction''.

If, by before 8.30 you mean perhaps twenty four houre before, then I agree in that regard ............. but repeatedly leaving the children even without the ultimate unfortunate result amounts to abandonment, does it not?

Does Portuguese Law insist upon there having been "harm" to create the offence?

The End Is Nigh wrote:If, by before 8.30 you mean perhaps twenty four houre before, then I agree in that regard ............. but repeatedly leaving the children even without the ultimate unfortunate result amounts to abandonment, does it not?

Does Portuguese Law insist upon there having been "harm" to create the offence?

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of 6pm on the 3rd May. I'm not sure about whether those children were left alone repeatedly... what with someone being 'sick' more or less every evening and random cots all over the shop, if you get my drift?

Yes indeed.


I just don't know which lies I believe any more.


Things just seem to swing around all the time.









Hang on .................... I don't believe ANY of them

The End Is Nigh wrote:Yes indeed.


I just don't know which lies I believe any more.


Things just seem to swing around all the time.


Hang on .................... I don't believe ANY of them

I've never believed the reason offered for the spare bed being used in the kids' room in 5a, for example. And long, long ago, I received a private message from someone on the Mirror Forum who shall remain namless, but the word 'logic' springs to mind.... telling me the police had discovered that all the kids slept in one room. Just saying....

It could be looked at another way. He'd get two years for breaching the secrecy laws, but the person who disposed of the body wouldn't get any heavier a sentence. In other words, he knows what happened and it wasn't him who disposed of the body.

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.

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.

Subconscious leakage. Trying to keep the lid on the pressure cooker and not always succeeding.
A result of having to stick to a script 24/7.

Much like KM's 'they've taken her'. Who are 'they'? Which 'her' have they taken?
Or Rachael Oldfield's radio appearance where she mentions resuscitation right out of context. How could they have resuscitated a child who had been abducted?

In this case, the mere fact that he'd been totting up prison tariffs for particular offences tells us something.
And it may well be of course that it was his sarcastic way of demonstrating, in his personal view, how disproportionate one tariff might appear against the other.

But hey, this is a perfect example of the aforementioned leakage, where the subconscious, just for a moment, has managed to elbow its way into the oft-rehearsed text.

By their unintended incontinence shall ye know them ......

But why, oh why, of why, can most people - especially those who can actually do something about it - not see through all this carp?

From the PJ files:

"Exposure or Abandonment

1. Whoever endangers the life of another person :

a) exposing him/her in a place that subjects him/her to a situation from which he/she cannot defend himself/herself on his/her own : or

b) abandoning him/her, defenceless, whenever the perpetrator had the duty to watch, keep vigilance over or assist him/her, shall be punished with imprisonment from 1 up to 5 years.

2. If the fact is committed by an ascendant, a descendant, an adoptive parent or an adopter of the victim, the perpetrator shall be punished with imprisonment from 2 up to 5 years.

3. If the fact results in :

a) a serious assault on physical integrity, the perpetrator shall be punished with imprisonment from 2 up to 8 years.

b) death, the perpetrator shall be punished with imprisonment from 3 up to 10 years."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RESPONSE-ROGATORY.htm#rr119

Yet AG backed down from declaring the McCanns guilty of abandonment - night after night?

That is disturbingly thought provoking.

margaret wrote:There have been a huge number of theories in the media. But what I want to know is—who told them all that?”

A theory is something based on evidence and yet Gerry wonders who told them that? Desperation to know what the police have or may have been saying to people.

I will tell you what I haven’t told anyone,” says Jon Corner, a family friend. “In August, I was with Kate in Portugal. She told me, ‘I wish I could roll back time and go back to the day before Madeleine was abducted. I would slow down time. I would get a really good look around and have a really good think. And I’d think: Where are you? Who are you? Who is secretly watching my family? Because someone was watching my family very, very carefully. And taking notes.’ ”

Completely barking. You wouldn't hold your daughter close knowing what unfolded? or perhaps decide not to go out on the lash? No... you'd look for someone to blame. Beggars belief.

At his side while we talk is Clarence Mitchell, a voluble former government media analyst and BBC reporter, handpicked by Gerry to be the latest in a line of spokesmen. On October 17, Mitchell spoke at Coventry University. His topic: “Missing Madeleine McCann: The Perfect PR Campaign.”

Sick, sick, SICK do you Mitchell ever stop to think of the child behind it all, Madeleine??

It is a very revealing interview but l can't stomach anymore.

That quote from Jon Corner, (I like him a lot - in the sense that US police use the phrase)- can you tell me where I can find that?
That PR campaign presentation - damn! Perfect PR Campaign (Well, Clarrie I don't agree, full of holes for those with brains), is quite amateurish. I'd give an A level student 6 out of 10 for that, just to encourage them. Dreadful graphics not to mention the fonts and colours, however still better than the content.
Clarrie is mediocrity personified.

Or Rachael Oldfield's radio appearance where she mentions resuscitation right out of context. How could they have resuscitated a child who had been abducted.

Good question AG. TMI (too much information) here from RO. She let slip, imo. My God, how can these people (The T7) live with themselves? There is absolutely no doubt that they have lied about the disappearance of a three year old child. from within their group. They REFUSED to return to Portugal for a re-construction of the events of that night. I will NEVER understand that. Five Christmasses have passed since Madeleine's disappearance and not one of them have shown to have a conscience. So Sad. Christmas night now and my thoughts are of this little girl, who I never knew. The T7 are a disgrace to themselves and to humanity, this Christmas night.

The End Is Nigh wrote:But why, oh why, of why, can most people - especially those who can actually do something about it - not see through all this carp?

I agree. WHY?

IMO, cops are not stupid, they see the same thing as us. How is it possible to NOT see all incoherence? Impossible.

The only explanation, if it's a whitewash, is that SY, Met, and all British cops are not genuine because they are pressured by higher autorities. As I said, any cop genuinely involved and free from any kind of pressure will see, I have no doubt about that.

tigger wrote:

margaret wrote:There have been a huge number of theories in the media. But what I want to know is—who told them all that?”

A theory is something based on evidence and yet Gerry wonders who told them that? Desperation to know what the police have or may have been saying to people.

I will tell you what I haven’t told anyone,” says Jon Corner, a family friend. “In August, I was with Kate in Portugal. She told me, ‘I wish I could roll back time and go back to the day before Madeleine was abducted. I would slow down time. I would get a really good look around and have a really good think. And I’d think: Where are you? Who are you? Who is secretly watching my family? Because someone was watching my family very, very carefully. And taking notes.’ ”

Completely barking. You wouldn't hold your daughter close knowing what unfolded? or perhaps decide not to go out on the lash? No... you'd look for someone to blame. Beggars belief.

At his side while we talk is Clarence Mitchell, a voluble former government media analyst and BBC reporter, handpicked by Gerry to be the latest in a line of spokesmen. On October 17, Mitchell spoke at Coventry University. His topic: “Missing Madeleine McCann: The Perfect PR Campaign.”

Sick, sick, SICK do you Mitchell ever stop to think of the child behind it all, Madeleine??

It is a very revealing interview but l can't stomach anymore.

That quote from Jon Corner, (I like him a lot - in the sense that US police use the phrase)- can you tell me where I can find that?
That PR campaign presentation - damn! Perfect PR Campaign (Well, Clarrie I don't agree, full of holes for those with brains), is quite amateurish. I'd give an A level student 6 out of 10 for that, just to encourage them. Dreadful graphics not to mention the fonts and colours, however still better than the content.
Clarrie is mediocrity personified.

The fact that Clarrie believes that he conducted a "perfect" PR campaign speaks volumes really. If the purpose of the campaign had been to find Madeleine, then clearly the campaign failed miserably. However, if the sole purpose of the campaign was to keep the McCanns out of jail and the campaign had no intention of ever finding Madeleine, it is only then that you could even say that the campaign was a success, at least so far.

How sad for Madeleine that a PR campaign had been launched with the sole purpose of protecting the reputations of her neglectful parents and keeping them out of jail. I suppose that finding Madeleine could not have been one of the intended purposes of the campaign, as Clarrie most likely knew that finding her would be an impossibility.

Clarrie gave a talk on "Reputation Management" and his success in that field. Doesn't that say it all sadly.

Alex Woolfall was an expert in "Crisis Management" otherwise known as "Reputation Management" on behalf of Mark Warner in May 2007 (wow did he do a great job - were Kate & Gerry at a Mark Warner resort?). Clarrie is following in his footsteps but forgot he is talking about a family not a "brand" - or has he?