domingo, 26 de fevereiro de 2012

J.Ferreiro (B.Smith)

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com/2012/02/fibs-r-us-news.html

"You see how constant and compulsive lying eventually starts to trip you up virtually every time you open your mouth?"




Words always catch up with you in the end

Have a look at this entry in Gerry McCann’s blog on August 11 2007.

It begins “Just another day...” and is followed by four paragraphs supposedly dealing with everything that had been happening to them. The last paragraph runs:

“Other tests are outstanding and Kate and I do hope that these take us forward in finding out who took Madeleine and where she is. Unfortunately we have to add patience to our other characteristics. There was a statement from the Portuguese police today regarding the recent activity in the investigation and media speculation. They confirmed that there are new leads and that we are not suspects in Madeleine’s disappearance.”

Not suspected, eh? The entry was written nine days after the police had ejected them from their villa while it was forensically examined and bin bags of their possessions were seized for examination, including Kate’s diary, her bible, all their clothes and the cuddle cat toy; five days after the pair’s car was seized for testing without warning; three days after they were interrogated and accused of failing to tell the truth about the disappearance, leaving both of them in hysterical tears. 

None of these events had been mentioned by Gerry because, as his wife foolishly let slip in her book, they felt lying was a better option than letting the public—their potential saviours as long as they continued to believe in the pair’s innocence – know the truth about what was really happening.

Suspect, noun: “One who is suspected, especially of having committed a crime.”

But wait! Gerry, our clever Gerry, has been very careful in his use of words: the intention was clearly to lie, to pretend that the police didn’t suspect them in any way—that was the whole point of the deception which Kate McCann later admitted was taking place. But he’s used that word “suspect” in a context where, should the truth of what had been happening ever come out – as it eventually did in Madeleine – his paid liar, Clarence Mitchell, or his defence lawyer would be able to say, with a straight face, “Gerry stated quite correctly that the police had told them they were not arguidos, so he was telling the truth.”

Dishonest rubbish, of course, as so many as the Team’s statements are, but difficult to disprove conclusively.

But time passes and, if you are compulsive liars, the more that passes the less able you are to  keep track of your own “cleverness” anymore.

In November 2011 we find this in Gerry’s witness statement to the Leveson inquiry:

“The nature of the reporting changed dramatically after Kate and I were declared arguido by the PJ...this officially meant that we were “persons of interest” and were entitled to legal aid representation which is not the case for “witnesses”. Under Portuguese law at that time the police determined when a witness became an arguido and this status would remain until the investigation was complete. The media interpreted it as meaning we were formal suspects in the police investigation.”

And, just in case we hadn’t got his point, he added as a witness:

Mr Jay: To be clear about it, and you'll correct me if I'm wrong because you know more about this than me,arguido does not mean "suspect", it means "person of interest"; is that correct?

A: [trying to cover himself yet again]That's what we were advised was the closest correlation.

Mr Jay: Maybe there are two points here. The first point is the obvious one that needs to be stated. There isn't an equivalent concept of arguido in English law. Do you think, rightly or wrongly, the British press somehow interpreted "arguido" as equivalent to "suspect", which carried with it, therefore, its own connotations?

A: Yes. I mean clearly the word was used that way almost exclusively.

So arguido, according to Gerry, definitely does not mean “suspect”. Therefore if he was telling the truth at the Leveson inquiry then he cannot have been telling the truth in his blog entry! And if he was not telling the truth at Leveson then he still cannot have been telling the truth in the blog entry!

You see how constant and compulsive lying eventually starts to trip you up virtually every time you open your mouth?
Enviar um comentário