sábado, 31 de dezembro de 2011

Guerra: é sempre uma honra!

"I watched that interview when it originally aired, but once I saw the direction it was heading I found it unbearable to watch; I left the room where my TV set was on several occasions. I was especially irritated when Piers Morgan started a sentence that was going to be derogatory of the Portuguese police, but cleverly stopped himself in mid sentence. Although he had cut himself short, probably to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit, the damage had already been done, because anyone with half a mind knew the gist of what he had intended to say. When Piers Morgan pressed Mrs. McCann about her claim that the Portuguese police had offered her a plea bargain, Mrs. McCann, after a pause, coyly said: "indirectly." It was another ambiguous answer, leaving open the possibility that if confronted in a legal setting she could claim that she misinterpreted what her lawyer had told her."

When Mr. Morgan stated that the case was incredible because there was no evidence of anything, that the abductor didn't leave a trace, Mr. McCann referred to the Smith sighting and the Tanner sighting. Of course he didn't mention that Mr. Smith believed the man he had seen was Mr. McCann himself. Even though Piers Morgan hadn't mentioned Mr. Wilkins, the man who along with Mr. McCann had failed to see Jane Tanner's abductor despite all four? of them being in such a confined area, Mr. McCann found it necessary to broach the incident involving Mr. Wilkins. Mr. McCann muttered, with a nervous laughter, that it was indeed improbable that he and Mr. Wilkins failed to see Jane Tanner's abductor but nonetheless "it happened."

At the time I didn't know that Piers Morgan was once the editor of News of the World, a position given to him by Mr. Murdoch. Once I found this out, it all became clear why Mr. Morgan was rather meek when he interviewed the McCanns. His loyalty to Mr. Murdoch was revealed once again when, on CNN, he defended his former employer saying that Mr. Murdoch could not have know his newspapers engaged in hacking.

Looking back though, I think that that interview was detrimental to the McCann's credibility. I think that every time they get in front of a camera that will be the case. Despite all the practice they have had, they still come off as mannequins in a store display.

31/12/2011 03:32:00

To summarise: The night of May 3, 2007 was planned. But it didn't quite go according to plan because of Mr. Smith.

What probably happened is that the child died the night before, probably as a result of a blow or blows to the head from her mother who had lost patience with her tantrums. I had wavered about whether the child died on May the 3rd or earlier, but after reading some convincing arguments, I do believe the McCanns could have slipped into the premises of the creche and signed Madeleine in and out without the child actually being there. The autopsy would have revealed that Madeleine had died from a head injury and possibly could have revealed that she had been sedated on previous occasions. The twins were sedated that Thursday to prevent them from seeing their dead sister being taken away by their father and seeing the play acting that would follow.

It's obvious: it's all a lie. The stories are full of holes, any rational person, never mind a professional investigator, upon reading the depositions has to suspect the parents. Unfortunately, too much effort,possibly even of a criminal nature, has been expended to sustain the lie and I fear that this couple will be protected for as long as they live. Perhaps the best that we can hope for is that the body of the child is found so that at least this money grabbing scheme can be put to an end.

31/12/2011 05:54:00 "

Enviar um comentário