Is Kate an inveterate liar

I was looking for the Times report from PDL about the e-fit from which the Times U.K. copied....couldn't find it but came across this snippet. How many timess has Kate lied and not been challenged ?


Case Study: Maddie Crying
The Sun, 11 April 2008
The Sun, 11 April 2008

A look at the McCanns' claim that Madeleine spoke to them on the morning of her disappearance, 03 May 2007, and asked them why they hadn't come when she and Sean had been crying the night before.

"If Madeleine hadn't been abducted we'd never have thought of that comment again," said Kate McCann. Yet Rachael Oldfield, Jane Tanner and Fiona Payne all say that Kate discussed the incident when they arrived at the Tapas restaurant on the evening of 03 May 2007.

"I think the worst thing is, we, kind of, almost thought about not going and, errm... and did. We weren't sure we were going to get into the Tapas," said Gerry McCann, adding "remember?" to Kate. Yet, on the Monday of that week, Rachael Oldfield had arranged a block booking for the entire group to dine at the Tapas, at 8:30pm, for the rest of the holiday.

They thought they wouldn't get in because there were:

20 paedo's preying
11 chuggers chugging
10 burglars burgling
9 suspects watching.
8 crechemen walking
7 prowlers prowling
6 dodgy cleaners.

Five blonde haired mennnnnnnn.

4 swarthy guys
3 laundry men
2 soothing couple
And a tractor driver in a pear tree!

Well that lot had to eat somewhere, didn't they?

HAPPY XMASSSSS!

Panda wrote:

I was looking for the Times report from PDL about the e-fit from which the Times U.K. copied....couldn't find it but came across this snippet. How many timess has Kate lied and not been challenged ?


Case Study: Maddie Crying
The Sun, 11 April 2008
The Sun, 11 April 2008

A look at the McCanns' claim that Madeleine spoke to them on the morning of her disappearance, 03 May 2007, and asked them why they hadn't come when she and Sean had been crying the night before.

"If Madeleine hadn't been abducted we'd never have thought of that comment again," said Kate McCann. Yet Rachael Oldfield, Jane Tanner and Fiona Payne all say that Kate discussed the incident when they arrived at the Tapas restaurant on the evening of 03 May 2007.

"I think the worst thing is, we, kind of, almost thought about not going and, errm... and did. We weren't sure we were going to get into the Tapas," said Gerry McCann, adding "remember?" to Kate. Yet, on the Monday of that week, Rachael Oldfield had arranged a block booking for the entire group to dine at the Tapas, at 8:30pm, for the rest of the holiday.

We almost thought about not going, I love it. So responsible!

It can be true that Rachel booked the Tapas for the whole week - which isn't really allowed but we all know they are special so that's OK - AND also true that they thought about not going that night, but not because they weren't sure they would get IN.

Kate also states in her bewk that she lied to the press about why Gerry wasn't going to do something he'd had planned; they'd been called in for questioning by the PJ and they didn't want that information getting out so they said he had a little tummy twubble.

They seem to feel the press is there to harm their "case" or them personally and it's an us vs them scenario, there is absolutely no qualm about lying to the "media" - why should there be, once you lie to the cops, who are searching for your child, you really have set the bar low for when you need to tell the truth vs when it is okay to game the system.

Special rules for McCanns.

Nice one jeanmonroe  

Another lie saying the shutters were up

Yet another one saying the curtains were blowing

widowan wrote:

Panda wrote:

I was looking for the Times report from PDL about the e-fit from which the Times U.K. copied....couldn't find it but came across this snippet. How many timess has Kate lied and not been challenged ?


Case Study: Maddie Crying
The Sun, 11 April 2008
The Sun, 11 April 2008

A look at the McCanns' claim that Madeleine spoke to them on the morning of her disappearance, 03 May 2007, and asked them why they hadn't come when she and Sean had been crying the night before.

"If Madeleine hadn't been abducted we'd never have thought of that comment again," said Kate McCann. Yet Rachael Oldfield, Jane Tanner and Fiona Payne all say that Kate discussed the incident when they arrived at the Tapas restaurant on the evening of 03 May 2007.

"I think the worst thing is, we, kind of, almost thought about not going and, errm... and did. We weren't sure we were going to get into the Tapas," said Gerry McCann, adding "remember?" to Kate. Yet, on the Monday of that week, Rachael Oldfield had arranged a block booking for the entire group to dine at the Tapas, at 8:30pm, for the rest of the holiday.

We almost thought about not going, I love it. So responsible!

It can be true that Rachel boocked the Tapas for the whole week - which isn't really allowed but we all know they are special - AND also true that they thought about not going that night, but not because they weren't sure they would get IN.

Kate also states in her bewk that she lied to the press about why Gerry wasn't going to do something he'd had planned; they'd been called in for questioning by the PJ and they didn't want that information getting out so they said he had a little tummy twubble.

They seem to feel the press is there to harm their "case" or them personally and it's an us vs them scenario, there is absolutely no qualm about lying to the "media" - why should there be, once you lie to the cops, who are searching for your child, you really have set the bar low for when you need to tell the truth vs when it is okay to game the system.

Special rules for McCanns.

Nobody has questioned her though widowan.

I'm not sure that's true Panda.

We Internet nutters question her and for every one of us there are probably 1000 more who do. Pat Brown and Amaral question her stories as did a number of UK cops - and early on didn't some Ambassador send a note up to 10 Downing about don't get too involved with these people; their story is a little funny?

Or do you mean the Met doesn't question them as in bring them in publicly and visibly for questioning and then tell the press? They could be questioning her today for all we would find out.

I think I read somewhere that with a lying suspect questioning them does little good. That the cops are better off following other clues and leads rather than listen to more mumbo jumbo that makes you want to slap someone. Besides with these, they have very expensive defense attorneys. So they'd have to couch it in some way like Blacksmith was joking about - invite them to participate in a discussion about missing children.

widowan wrote:I'm not sure that's true Panda.

We Internet nutters question her and for every one of us there are probably 1000 more who do. Pat Brown and Amaral question her stories as did a number of UK cops - and early on didn't some Ambassador send a note up to 10 Downing about don't get too involved with these people; their story is a little funny?

Or do you mean the Met doesn't question them as in bring them in publicly and visibly for questioning and then tell the press? They could be questioning her today for all we would find out.

I mean that apparently no one questioned her about her claim that the Window was open and shutter up, all the interviews the McCanns gave, yet no one questioned her. The only Interviewer who was not in awe of the McCanns was Jane Hill from the BBC when she asked why they didn't join the search for Madeleine when so many searched until the small hours.Obviously , the rest of the Tapas Group never questioned her because they were her friends.

Panda wrote:

widowan wrote:I'm not sure that's true Panda.

We Internet nutters question her and for every one of us there are probably 1000 more who do. Pat Brown and Amaral question her stories as did a number of UK cops - and early on didn't some Ambassador send a note up to 10 Downing about don't get too involved with these people; their story is a little funny?

Or do you mean the Met doesn't question them as in bring them in publicly and visibly for questioning and then tell the press? They could be questioning her today for all we would find out.

I mean that apparently no one questioned her about her claim that the Window was open and shutter up, all the interviews the McCanns  gave, yet no one questioned her. The only Interviewer who was not in awe of the McCanns was Jane Hill from the BBC when she asked why they didn't join the search for  Madeleine when so many searched until the small hours.Obviously , the rest of the Tapas Group never questioned her because they were her friends.

Of her friends, I can't imagine asking that. They either believed her or didn't believe her but were too horrified to suggest that she might have done that herself. They heard her on the phone or Gerry on the phone to his sister and to Kate's mom lying about the shutters and windows being smashed and jimmied - they stood right there and let him get away with that when they could see the shutters had been opened from inside the apt and nothing was broken.

her BEST friend, Fiona, found it "odd" that the twins slept so soundly and also odd that Kate did nothing to waken them - just verify that they were in fact alive and breathing.

If I saw my friend, or say a close relative, a cousin, who was a doctor who majored in knocking people out, do that to her precious babies - my heart would have dropped into my shoes. You would know, but what could you say and to whom?

There is nothing you can put into words but that little feeling that tells you - she knows they've been drugged and she doesn't want to take them to hospital to save them. Either this is the most callous woman on earth or she herself administered the medication that has them so deeply asleep.

That being the case you either end your relationship with this person and never see them again (as Oldfields and OBriens seem to have done) or you push that far down in your subconscious because what are the chances that she only doped the two good sleepers and not the one who did routinely wake, wander and cry?

And if she drugged her kids and lied about it then she is more responsible for Madeleine's disappearance than ever because the poor girl couldn't even wake up to cry or shout -she was able to be carried off without a peep, thanks to the selfish neglect of the parents. And then they lie about the shutters.

Watching Gerry run out to get his greasy fingers all over the shutters outside "pushing them up" to verify that they could be opened from outside - destroying evidence - lying about it - I think the "Friends" were questioning that plenty. You can only write so much off to panic, everyone knows not to touch things in case the bad guys fingerprints are still on the window.

Weird how they did not find any of Gerry's on there... Good clean up job.

Yes, she is an incorrigible liar. Think about the explanation given for the dog alert to her pants. (Not sure if it was Kate who said she had been in contact with half a dozen deceased persons the previous week; if not, the explanation was likely offered by her to whoever was authorized to spin the lie.)

interested wrote:Yes, she is an incorrigible liar.  Think about the explanation given for the dog alert to her pants.  (Not sure if it was Kate who said she had been in contact with half a dozen deceased persons the previous week; if not, the explanation was likely offered by her to whoever was authorized to spin the lie.)

She also lied outright about "finding out" due to Gerry's scientific research that cadaver odor only remains 30 days. That's a provable lie.

I really want to know, given they were so certain Madeleine couldn't have left the apartment by herself and so certain that she'd been abducted, what exactly they were searching FOR whilst running around the resort?

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id242.html Here's much more info on these 'inconsistencies'.

Wintabells wrote:I really want to know, given they were so certain Madeleine couldn't have left the apartment by herself and so certain that she'd been abducted, what exactly they were searching FOR whilst running around the resort?

Especially from 4am to 6am when allegedly nobody else was looking.

jinvta wrote:

Wintabells wrote:I really want to know, given they were so certain Madeleine couldn't have left the apartment by herself and so certain that she'd been abducted, what exactly they were searching FOR whilst running around the resort?

Especially from 4am to 6am when allegedly nobody else was looking.

EXCEPT DP and GM who both 'went out again' together at 4am! (4th May 2007)

I wonder where those two 'went'?

Maybe to move 'something' from 'somewhere' to 'somewhere else'?

In a, now 'missing', blue tennis sports bag?

From the Case Files - Mobile Phone Analysis: https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t8225-mobile-phone-analysis

It is understandable that on 4th there is a large volume of communications traffic during the morning, in the immediately after the disappearance. That is seen more on Kate's mobile than that of Gerald. Nonetheless, there had been two intervals of time in which neither one nor the other generated a single record. Those periods are between 4:15 and 6:00am, and between 7:15 and 7:45am.

The fact stands out that most of the witnesses who had been there in support of the search for Madeleine, in the first moments after the alert of the disappearance, stated for the record that they had stopped looking for the child around 4:00am, there having been a few who had stopped later and others earlier.

RECOMMENDATIONS (Report page 60)

Given the above, it is recommended:

To determine either from the couple, or from other sources, where they were in the periods between 4:15 and 6:00am and between 7:15 and 7:45am on 5th. [NOTE: This is an error in the report. It should be 'on 4th'

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-new-mobile-phone-2973968
complete article:

Madeleine McCann: New mobile phone information could hold key to child's disappearance
MIRROR December 31, 2013. by Tom Pettifor

A new dossier of mobile phone calls is believed to contain numbers that have yet to be identified - and officers hope they could provide vital new leads

Detectives are examining mobile phone information they believe could hold the key to Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.

Portuguese authorities are thought to have provided Scotland Yard with a list of calls made in and around the Ocean Club in Praia de Luz between 9pm and 10pm on May 3 2007 – the night the three-year-old vanished.

The dossier is believed to contain phone numbers that have yet to be identified, and officers hope they could provide vital new leads.

Detectives hope to track down the registered owner of each phone, and check whether any are known sex offenders.

The information was sent to the Met in response to an “international letter of request” asking for assistance from foreign police forces in 31 countries.

The requests are believed to relate to unidentified mobile phone numbers and it is the first time they have been analysed in detail. The Met are preparing to send another letter of request soon, sources said.

Detectives and Crown Prosecution Service lawyers are believed to have prepared a string of ILORs but remain hopeful that a joint probe can be established, rendering them unnecessary.

If an arrangement cannot be reached then it is feared the British investigation could drag on for years and end up costing at least double the £5million already spent.

Portuguese police revealed in October that their investigation was being restarted as a result of new lines of inquiry emerging from their own internal review.

They had originally shelved their probe in 2008, the year after Madeleine vanished, but supported the British-run inquiry.

Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, the officer spearheading the probe, revealed in October that the records could hold the key.

He said the analysis was a “targeted attack on that data to see whether it can assist us”.

He added: “We’ve got a data set of phone traffic. Within that phone traffic, you can see we’ve got some of those numbers we can attribute to people, but a large number of them we can’t ...

"A lot of the focus is not necessarily to find a suspect, but also witnesses. We’re trying to understand who was there for a range of reasons.”

Portuguese police have always had the phone records but they have never been examined in such detail.

The Met is now examining 41 persons of interest, including 15 UK nationals.

A Met police spokesman said: “We are not giving a running commentary. However we will issue details of any new ILOR issued to the Portuguese authorities.”.

Thanks jeanmonroe,

"Portuguese authorities are thought to have provided Scotland Yard with a list of calls made in and around the Ocean Club in Praia de Luz between 9pm and 10pm on May 3 2007 – the night the three-year-old vanished."

Now this IS interesting and I wonder who supplied the Mirror with this information.

The Portugese Prosecutor asked the Court if the phone calls picked up could be used in a Trial, the Court said it was" too intrusive.", I read this years ago.!!Maybe this is the breakthrough we have all been waiting for, fingers crossed.

How can you "almost think about" not doing something? You either think of a thing or you don't. Then you do it or you don't, or you almost don't. None of the actual language they use ever makes any sense. Which would suggest (according to Judge Judy, at least) that it's not true.

I never understood why the Portugese Police was so lenient with the McCanns, daily briefings to the Press, deliberately employing their own Private detectives when it was against Portugese Law getting their own DNA sample and sending it to a U.K. Firm for analysis etc. Were the Police so laid back or was it interference from the U.K. Government ???? As for Kates' lies , why didn't the Portugese Police make a statement denying her claims.Come on OPORTO......if you have anything important enough to re-open the case, hurry up and finish your Report so that justice for Madeleine will be seen to be done and all these millions of Euros will not have been spent in vain.

jeanmonroe wrote:They thought they wouldn't get in because there were:

20 paedo's preying
11 chuggers chugging
10 burglars burgling
9 suspects watching.
8 crechemen walking
7 prowlers prowling
6 dodgy cleaners.

Five blonde haired mennnnnnnn.

4 swarthy guys
3 laundry men
2 soothing couple
And a tractor driver in a pear tree!

Well that lot had to eat somewhere, didn't they?

HAPPY XMASSSSS!

   

The only way to stop all this Press nonsense and Kates lies is to close the case, end of story . The McCanns cannot complain that not enough was done to find Madeleine and all that has been achieved is to make the McCanns richer. Madeleine has become a cash cow for too many people for far too long.


HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE.  

If the PJ have somehow got some information which they think will lead them to find Madeleine's body, or certain information as to what happened to it, there might, just might, be a solution to this case. There is no indication at all that they have this information. However, SOMETHING has caused their current Attorney General to allow the re-opening of the case. I wonder what it is.

There will have to come a point, and that pretty soon, if there is no further important evidence being discovered, that both police services should call a halt, and spend no more money on the case. At the moment it is not clear whether the PJ have something big to go on or not, or whether anyone in the UK has, so to speak, 'turned Queen's Evidence'.

comperedna wrote:If the PJ have somehow got some information which they think will lead them to find Madeleine's body, or certain information as to what happened to it, there might, just might, be a solution to this case. There is no indication at all that they have this information. However, SOMETHING has caused their current Attorney General to allow the re-opening of the case. I wonder what it is.

There will have to come a point, and that pretty soon, if there is no further important evidence being discovered, that both police services should call a halt, and spend no more money on the case. At the moment it is not clear whether the PJ have something big to go on or not, or whether anyone in the UK has, so to speak, 'turned Queen's Evidence'.

Well comparedna, the OPORTO team had 2 years to produce some evidence to make the PJ agree to re-open the case. After reading about these 38 "persons of interest" and phone calls six yrs old which they hope will provide important information the PJ had better get a move on before the British Press turns on them as well.

Panda wrote:

comperedna wrote:If the PJ have somehow got some information which they think will lead them to find Madeleine's body, or certain information as to what happened to it, there might, just might, be a solution to this case. There is no indication at all that they have this information. However, SOMETHING has caused their current Attorney General to allow the re-opening of the case. I wonder what it is.

There will have to come a point, and that pretty soon, if there is no further important evidence being discovered, that both police services should call a halt, and spend no more money on the case. At the moment it is not clear whether the PJ have something big to go on or not, or whether anyone in the UK has, so to speak, 'turned Queen's Evidence'.

Well comparedna, the OPORTO team had 2 years to produce some evidence to make the PJ agree to re-open the case. After reading about these 38 "persons of interest" and phone calls six yrs old which they hope will provide important information the PJ had better get a move on before the British Press turns on them as well.

The PJ has no power whatsoever to open, re-open or shelve cases. The Oporto team is a branch of the PJ (there are many throughout the country) and they can only ask. It's the AG's office which decides.