Control!

Extracted from http://mccannfiles.com/id91.html


Vatican Radio: "Susie Hodges from Vatican Radio. What lessons do you give
to other parents that have to go through this appalling experience?


Gerry McCann:
"I... We hope and pray that no-one ever does go through it
again. Errm... I
think... I hope that, if it does happen, that there will be some
template, errr... from what we
have done, as our extended family, that will help raise the awareness for any other
missing children and it's possible tosuch cases. Having
spoken, errm... to peop... you know, errr... people around us, then stayed strong and taking control even
of small things because you feel totally out of control in those first hours and taking control
of this... of this smallest decisions helps you cope and think rationally and influence things around you and that, I think,
is the most important thing." unquote

Totally out of control in those first hours - no wonder he reported a 'disaster' to the family.
Losing Maddie wasn't the disaster he was talking about, a number of things had already gone wrong, he had lost control - that was the disaster.
The rest speaks for itself, advice is: taking control of even the smallest decisions will enable you to influence things around you - we're still not talking about Maddie here, we're only talking about how Gerry feels - that is the most important thing.

This early interview, just after the visit to the Pope end of May 07, is interesting in the light of the recent news on Saville, on how the April case was managed and the McCann Template being implemented there.

Going back to the beginning of the McCann saga, control was in place pretty damn soon. Foreign Office, lawyers, PR. Imo a lot of things went wrong on the night of the 3rd and Gerry lost control. Which is to be expected when you have so many extras who don't know the 'play' and only have walk-on parts.
But control was restored within days and from then even the press was controlled.
In interviews there were - after a short while - never any unexpected questions. In Kate's diary (I can't find the ref just now) she does mention that they rehearsed for up to three hours for interviews. Nothing in the pubic domain is as it seems, a careful stage managed interview (nice lighting etc. holding hands) is the norm.

In the Lisbon court video when there was no control, Gerry lost it, saying it was about 'this girl'. Kate stood there saying she knew what happened, she was there - in short a disaster again.

Compare this to Saville's technique of controlling situations. His PA has now come clean and told how Saville would never take part in any event where he could he asked questions that might 'catch him out'.

But this topic is not about Saville, it's about control exercised by the mcCanns, both in public and in their private lives. Who else has children who go to sleep at 7.30 and never wake up during the night?

Maddie wasn't easy to control, she woke up during the night. Or: 'she came through' as Gerry said about Maddie waking up and crying. That imo is what you say when someone wakes up despite medication.
There is an interview where Kate too says 'What do you mean, you woke up!' - as what she should have said to Maddie in reply to the crying question.
Both remarks imo only focus on the waking up, not the reason for it. The waking up is the thing they are both trying to control.
Maddie being difficult may only be Maddie being almost impossible to control.

The befriending of certain police officers, such as Ricardo Paiva (whose children were allowed to play with the twins) and calling Stuart from the Leicester Police 'Stu' - managing to get a link to their website on the LP website - all part of the control.

[quote="tigger"]Extracted from http://mccannfiles.com/id91.html



Compare this to Saville's technique of controlling situations. His PA has now come clean and told how Saville would never take part in any event where he could he asked questions that might 'catch him out'.

But this topic is not about Saville, it's about control exercised by the mcCanns, both in public and in their private lives. Who else has children who go to sleep at 7.30 and never wake up during the night?

Tigger, have you noticed that some newspapers are spelling his name with one L......... i.e. saVILE. Could/would be more appropriate ?

Savile with one L is the correct spelling of his name rather than the more common Saville.

So-vile is more appropriate now.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Savile with one L is the correct spelling of his name rather than the more common Saville.

So-vile is more appropriate now.

Good morning NBY,

Thankyou for clearing that up. I have been trying to find the correct spelling.

tigger good post

i was thinking the exact same last week when some one who was talking about js...on the lines of he cant have done it ...he couldnt have kept a thing like that quiet...and if people new
about it why didn't they speak out before ..why wait till he is not here to defend himself

well it just shows you as a prime example ..how many people in the lime light or victims...can be kept silent ..if the right strings are pulled...[and u have good lawyers ..money..and a fear of libel]

look what has happened to tony Bennett for daring to speak out ...it shows that those who can expose things fear libel/being sued more..god knows how many other thinks are kept under wraps because of this ...if u have the money ..justice and being held responsible doesnt apply to them..press senior officials...all who can do something sit back ..to let someone else start the ball rolling...or wait till the person dies... [why else has this been covered up all this time]it all boils down to money...no wonder they say money speaks all languages

i know myself when i have tried to speak on radio call ins also got family friends to also ring at same time ...none of the calls are let through although the one person [an experiment] who sympathized with the mucks was called back

like the majority ..think surely if he had done these things ..he couldnt have covered it up....but now they know different..

and sadly ...this is always going to protect the mccs ...until one day someone ..who has the money and guts to take them on..its a sad affair when our justice boils down to its not who you are its how much money you have to protect yourselves with a big cover up...

i have just returned from spain ...its amazing what is allowed to be said there on phone ins... discussions etc ..it shows how brain washed we english are ...even i think they wont get away with saying that..then realise i am in spain

mwah xtina xxx -- long time no see --- yes money talks -- also they threw everything at these good drs didnt they -- how could good drs do a thing like this no way -- ok the shipman thing yes -- but all these drs wtf this has to be burried and fast -- how they didnt think 5 years on -- internet nutters would still be talking about this case -- didnt think did they -- can run have money whatever -- shit us up nah -- is that justice for madeleine -- sorry to say imo -- our op are gonna be the only justice for madeleine -- someone in the early days said -- tapas and mcanns in jail nah it wont ever happen -- and they were right imo -- how wrong i was to have hope that it may happen one day -- it will happen on the 12th -- of never

hi cass xxxxxx hope u are all ok ..sad the s has gone

what i was thinking about the js affair ...is how many people thought [victims/those who knew] it was all buried in a cover up and also with him forever...and would never get closure or justice...but they have imo there is no doubt whatsoever he has done the things he is accused off...he is dead but his victims are still alive...but they now have a voice...are believed and no longer a victim of a big cover up the ones responsible credibility blown apart forever

i still think and have faith ....that it may be a long way off or ....will back fire on the silliest thing ....but one day maddie will have justice and a voice ..of what happened to her that maddie was the victim ...not the mccs

The case of JS should convince people that conspiracies of silence can and do exist to protect certain groups of like-minded individuals - paedophiles in other words.

I'm glad people are picking up on this. @ cass Don't be disheartened, I'm patient and the PJ will release ALL the rest of the files in ten years' time. TM is sitting on a time bomb.
The control and government help that was their protection is slowly being eroded. A lot of the help was in the interest of others. The public too, is no longer squarely behind them.
The silence from camp TM is deafening imo. Planning the six year anniversary? No one but a few tabloids will be interested and no doubt there will another sighting of Maddie.

But I - as I'm not a mother - would love to know what mums here think of the likelyhood of children going to sleep at exactly the same time each night and sleep through the night each night.

This is from the report of Ricardo Paiva 3/9/07:

.....Strangely, Kate also made several requests, three months after the disappearance of Madeleine, that the police should take blood, hair and nail tests of Madeleine's twin siblings, because, as she said, she remembered that on the day of Madeleine's disappearance, in spite of all the commotion and noise made by the authorities and other persons who were looking for Madeleine in apartment 5ª of the Ocean Club, the twins never woke up, having been transported to another apartment, they remained asleep, due to which she now presumes that they were under the effect of some sedative drug that a presumed abductor had administered to the three children in order to be able to abduct Madeleine, a situation which Kate refers to being possible according to what she read in a criminal investigation manual given to her by the British authorities, that would have been the procedure of the abductor in the real case involving abduction, rape and murder of the girl.
Unquote.

Here is another part of a PJ report concerning sedatives:

Intercalary report compiled by chief inspector Tavares de Almeida, for the attention of the Criminal Investigation Coordinator, 10 September 2007
........the media suggested the possibility that the children could have been sedated to be kept asleep and allow the parents some rest.

Distant in time, Kate’s father, the grandfather of the child, Brian Healy, admits to the press that Kate could have administered some medication to the little girl, Calpol, to help the child (the children??) to sleep, contrary to what his daughter Kate has been stating.

Kate, through the PJ inspector that acted as “liaison” with the family, asked why samples weren’t taken from the twins in order to test that hypothesis. She knew well enough at that time, more than 3 months later, that such an exam would be worthless.She went even further and said that we – the investigation – should verify that the abductor had sedated Madeleine, in order to accomplish his action and that he had also sedated the twins…to consummate the act…however she didn’t say that at the right moment.

What we certainly know is that the sedatives have timings to act and timings to be expelled, that vary between six and 200 hours.
The McCanns’ medical knowledge is enough to know this, even if their professional activity never included performing toxicology exams.

unquote

Sorry about these long posts but:

In the diary we have several instances of bedtime of the twins being a trial and of the twins throwing a tantrum in the car so that they had to stop somewhere out of sight of the journalist.
Gives me the feeling they were missing the Calpol very badly!

quote
But I - as I'm not a mother - would love to know what mums here think of the likelyhood of children going to sleep at exactly the same time each night and sleep through the night each night.

........................
tigger i have mentioned this over the years several times ....it is impossible to get 3 under fours asleep at the same time in the same room especially when they are not in there home environment i would say there would be a lot of going backward and forwards to do this ...definitely not settling them to bed ...and then going for a night out

same as ...leaving the apartment....leaving twins on there own if u thought one of your children had been abducted........then also leaving them back at a creche ....when the so called abducter could have been any one ...any employer or guest...god u would have not trusted anyone ...[unless u knew there was no abductor of course] imo they left them because they knew they was safe

Who was it that said that they want to control what comes out off the media?

Kate McCann rang up the pj and booked an appointment for the twins to have hair samples taken....when Gerry McCann returned from somewhere and found out this he rang up and cancelled THAT appointment.....why haven't the media latched onto that.

kitti wrote:Who was it that said that they want to control what comes out off the media?

Kate McCann rang up the pj and booked an appointment for the twins to have hair samples taken....when Gerry McCann returned from somewhere and found out this he rang up and cancelled THAT appointment.....why haven't the media latched onto that.

Kate was certainly being controlled by Gerry at the start. Not always in control of himself. Remember that video where he just got up and left because they asked about Calpol?
Then that video when someone asked if he knew Murat, Gerry simply dragged Kate away with him after saying 'No comment'.

Gerry imo, is an absolute control fanatic. He needed to keep an eye on Kate, who could be a loose canon.

Controlling what comes out of the media is one of the Pink One's sayings isn't it? Certainly was his job!

This clip looks as if Gerry moved in very quickly to stop Jane Tanner from saying too much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4aBr5PTYY&feature=relmfu

Just after 1.50 Jane says something about Kate complaining of Gerry being gone for a long time due to watching football and he cuts in immediately and changes the subject.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:This clip looks as if Gerry moved in very quickly to stop Jane Tanner from saying too much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4aBr5PTYY&feature=relmfu

Just after 1.50 Jane says something about Kate complaining of Gerry being gone for a long time due to watching football and he cuts in immediately and changes the subject.

Yes NBY, he stops her from continuing and seems quite rattled.

chrissie wrote:

Not Born Yesterday wrote:This clip looks as if Gerry moved in very quickly to stop Jane Tanner from saying too much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4aBr5PTYY&feature=relmfu

Just after 1.50 Jane says something about Kate complaining of Gerry being gone for a long time due to watching football and he cuts in immediately and changes the subject.

Yes NBY, he stops her from continuing and seems quite rattled.

Good find NBY. He certainly does get rattled doesn't he!

I must own up to seeing this on another site and I hoped that it hadn't already been on here too.

It takes me back to when I was a child and said something in company that my mother didn't like. I'd get a look that nearly turned me to stone and I dreaded what she'd say to me when the guests had left!

Not Born Yesterday wrote:I must own up to seeing this on another site and I hoped that it hadn't already been on here too.

It takes me back to when I was a child and said something in company that my mother didn't like. I'd get a look that nearly turned me to stone and I dreaded what she'd say to me when the guests had left!

Thanks for bringing it over here. I'm glad for the opportunity to watch Gerry squirm.... again!

Jane always looks so guilty too doesn't she? She certainly freaked Gerry out with her clangour remark. No wonder he nearly jumped out of his skin, the last thing Gerry wanted right then was to confirm in peoples minds that he had been GONE A LONG TIME!!! Alarm bells! Alarm bells!

Definitely Gerry was uncomfortable with what Jane Tanner said and Jane Tanner then sort of smiles/laughs when Gerry interrupts her.

Then Dave Edgar says, well there are always inconsistencies, but it doesnt matter really where Gerry and Jez were standing chatting, its what Jane saw that really matters.

Then you glimpse the distance in the dark of what it was that Jane saw, and the child looked so unclear, yes you could see it was a man carrying a child in the reconstruction, but there's no way you could quickly understand from observations what the child was wearing.

Then Gerry says we've persecuted ourselves for not being there and for not being there at that moment, as if to say we can persecute ourselves but its not right that other people do so to us. But, he does not say sorry, because saying sorry means you put your hands up to doing something wrong. He's just choosing his words carefully here and its so obvious.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:This clip looks as if Gerry moved in very quickly to stop Jane Tanner from saying too much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4aBr5PTYY&feature=relmfu

Just after 1.50 Jane says something about Kate complaining of Gerry being gone for a long time due to watching football and he cuts in immediately and changes the subject.

So obvious isn't it. Take action, walk over to where you want the scene to be --

Not only that Gerry saying - looking for the word, we 'persecuted' ourselves for not being there at that moment - ...because that increased the risk of it'
Dr. McCann, it' didn't increase the risk of it that you weren't there 'that minute' it was a 100% risk all the time you weren't there, that minute or not makes no difference.

Then the voice over: Jane Tanner who was looking in on her sick daughter..... - jolly nice of her I say. Thoughtful.. (Although, don't forget, they did have a baby monitor although they didn't admit this to the PJ and not until after the Rothley meeting in November, did this fact emerge.)
Because without neglect, there could not be an abduction.

With regard to the control and conspiracy that
appears to be ever so present within the Savile
affair, It seems to contradict the views expressed
by George Galloway when he asserts that he does
not believe in such conspiracies because of the
numbers of people required to keep a secret.
I wonder what GG thinks now?

That Smith statement is crucial,but what is a tourist supposed to look like at night ? Tanner said she didnt think her 'sighting' looked like a tourist (God only knows what a holiday making faceless abductor is supposed to look like).First time i've heard the Smiths saying the same thing ?

So i am wondering now how a tourist dresses at that time of night compared to an 'abductor',seems to me both would be dressed fairly casual ? Why would either of these 'eye witnesses' say such a thing ?

I find it intolerable watching people lie...

But anyway...

It's obviously very important that Tanner's 'sighting' is taken seriously and their problem seems to be that if she did see GM and JW, how is it that they didn't see her?

JW said in one of his statements that he was standing talking to GM at the end of the little lane that runs along the back of the apartments, just near the gate to 5A and that if JT had walked past him, he'd have seen her because the road was so narrow.... (not sure which road he's referring to, because the road doesn't look narrow to me, so perhaps he means the pavement).

But GM conveniently claims he was standing on the other side of the road, presumably too busy craning his neck to talk to the giant that is JW to notice anything.

JT doesn't mention the buggy in her original statement does she? but on the Madeleine was Here footage, I seem to think she says something like 'and the buggy was facing this way' (good Jane, well done for sliding that detail in there).

I'd like to know:
a) which football team GM supports
b) what match was being screened on May 3rd 2007

Lioned wrote:That Smith statement is crucial,but what is a tourist supposed to look like at night ? Tanner said she didnt think her 'sighting' looked like a tourist (God only knows what a holiday making faceless abductor is supposed to look like).First time i've heard the Smiths saying the same thing ?

So i am wondering now how a tourist dresses at that time of night compared to an 'abductor',seems to me both would be dressed fairly casual ? Why would either of these 'eye witnesses' say such a thing ?

In the Smiths' case it might just because he was walking purposefully, had longish beige trousers on and was carrying a child - that would make you think it's a father possibly having moved a child from a car or taking a child home from e.g. a babysitter/mother in law.
But the point is that the Smiths spoke to him in English - don't forget PdL and the Algarve are literally 'Little Britain' and it's full of ex pats. The babes in the foreign woods that the mcCanns made out is far from the truth. For goodness' sakes, there was even a British padre. So perhaps the Smiths thought he was an ex pat.
I didn't actually know that the Smiths said that he wasn't a tourist. But a tourist would be ambling, probably in company of others.

I'd guess GM supports Man United.

And they played (and lost) AC Milan the night before, so it can't have been that match.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/6603095.stm

Theres not many matches played on thursdays in GB,never thought about that...i know man utd lost to ac milan the night before