'There's no evidence to implicate us in her death' GMcC.

3.49 (GMcC) '...the judiciary, having reviewed all of the evidence have said that there is no evidence that Madeleine is dead and there's no evidence to implicate us in her death....'


How can there be no evidence to implicate them in a death if there's no evidence of a death?
What are you talking about, Gerry?



http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/mccanns-full-press-conference-video.html

turn of phrase for GM to use!

..'there's no evidence she has come to any harm.' Comes a close second, repeated ad nauseam by Gerry in particular.

Being targeted by a paedophile network, or being abducted by a lone paedophile doesn't constitute 'no harm'. Not even if the said abductors had a change of heart and put her with a lovely childless family, psychological harm was done.

The childless family which was trotted out from time to time is in any case rubbish, they'd have stolen Amelie.

From the Vanity Fair Interview published 8/1/08, recorded and transcribed the end of September. Well worth a read if anyone want to have a look at McCannfiles.

[...] Portuguese attorney general Fernando Pinto Monteiro suggested that one way or another the McCanns were responsible for their child’s death. Specifically he said that if indeed Madeleine had been kidnapped, it was the carefully contrived publicity engineered by her parents that likely sealed her fate. “With the whole world having Madeleine’s photo,” he observed, any abductor would have been pushed to such a degree that “there’s a greater probability of the little girl being dead than alive.”

tigger - 'there's no evidence she has come to any harm.' Comes a close second, repeated ad nauseam by Gerry in particular.

Being targeted by a paedophile network, or being abducted by a lone paedophile doesn't constitute 'no harm'.




Paedophiles believe they are not causing any harm to children!!

A classic (and highly significant IMO) example of how the unconscious mind overrides the conscious and leaks into the speech of a person who is over-eggingly making a forceful point - but only succeeds in making the opposite one, ie no death/death.

By their leaks shall ye know them!

As a Canadian I have been interested in reading about the recent interviews with Conrad Black, convicted fraudster, by U.K. interviewers. He is the former media baron who has said he could live on $80 million a year.

I was impressed with the way he was grilled in the U.K. and wondered why the McCanns have not been asked equally pointed questions although I know the "circumstances" are different in that Black has already been convicted. Nevertheless, it pleases me that Black was not treated with kid gloves the way the McCanns have been.

Hopefully with the Savile scandal being exposed, someone in the U.K. press will take a firmer stance with the McCann scandal and connections to just how high up the scandal goes.

interested wrote:As a Canadian I have been interested in reading about the recent interviews with Conrad Black, convicted fraudster, by U.K. interviewers. He is the former media baron who has said he could live on $80 million a year.

I was impressed with the way he was grilled in the U.K. and wondered why the McCanns have not been asked equally pointed questions although I know the "circumstances" are different in that Black has already been convicted. Nevertheless, it pleases me that Black was not treated with kid gloves the way the McCanns have been.

Hopefully with the Savile scandal being exposed, someone in the U.K. press will take a firmer stance with the McCann scandal and connections to just how high up the scandal goes.

Oh yes, that interview with Adam Boulton on Sky news with Black was brilliant. I hope you got to see that one
If only the McCanns got that treatment!

wjk - I did get to see parts of Black's interviews on video and have read reports in U.K. and Canadian papers. The consensus appears to be this PR tour to rebuild his reputation (which he claims does not need rebuilding) has backfired.

It seems to me if you want to convince the world you are not a criminal, don't appear on TV and call people an a--hole and jackass and definitely don't threaten to smash someone's face in.

It all reminds me of that smart a-- reply, "ask the dogs".

interested wrote:wjk - I did get to see parts of Black's interviews on video and have read reports in U.K. and Canadian papers. The consensus appears to be this PR tour to rebuild his reputation (which he claims does not need rebuilding) has backfired.

It seems to me if you want to convince the world you are not a criminal, don't appear on TV and call people an a--hole and jackass and definitely don't threaten to smash someone's face in.

It all reminds me of that smart a-- reply, "ask the dogs".

Yes, it wasn't GM's greatest smart a*se answer. They (the dogs) keep on making him look like an even bigger idiot than he already looks.

Do we know when this interview took place? I liked the bit about "Senior Detective Edgar".....he was the only one., and what exactly has he achieved ???