10th anniversary stories: both lunatic and sensible varieties

I only saw a small clip of the 10 year interveiw on Sky News but the bits I saw were very interesting.
Gerry had to gulp before he said he believed Madeleine to be still alive and then he smirked , Kate nearly gave herself away when Fiona asked a question, can't remember the exact wording now but it was about the length of time shes been missing . Kate;s was after the first 48 hours (surely thats the time span given for finding someone alive?) she started to believe more that Madeleine must be out there somewhere alive, wierd

What's_up_doc? wrote:

Bampots wrote:

What's_up_doc? wrote:

Birdy wrote:Frigging unbelievable, they are going to challenge the Supreme Court again !!! Or are they taking on PJ this time. Narcissism at the highest level, who do these Mc suers think they are.
WOOF WOOF    

The airbrushing of this particular issue is shocking, deliberately ambiguous IMO without any reference to the court in question being the Supreme Court. Now the European Court of Human Rights would take into consideration that the Supreme Court's judgment referred in detail to both the right to family life and the right to freedom of expression, in great detail. Would it even get passed the first hearing? I really can't see it and the McCanns must know this, surely it's a bluff?

Is it not the ECHR what they are talking about ....or could they take the PJ to court(no idea if that is possible btw!)

As far as I'm aware, the ECHR is the last chance saloon, and it's a very very slim chance IMO. GM didn't say and he didn't say when, just reputation management IMO.

What they actually said was that they will be appealing, then he twitters on about not having done it yet.
And that it will go to the European Courts.

Well, whatever court the case ever goes to will be a European court, the UK courts are European courts, as are any Portuguese courts. And, presumably, he could have it in mind to appeal costs, for instance?

I think the statement is designed to make people believe that they have not faced a final defeat, especially when he then talks about how things have changed since they started the court action, explaining why this court case is not important now.

They have no chance whatsoever to appeal at the ECHR!

What's_up_doc? wrote:Such a great blog, I made a comment about Uriah Heep on Christobell's thread. I'm feeling a bit dim here but is Candyfloss Christobell, or have I got that wrong?

Well they do both begin with C....lol

Bampots wrote:

What's_up_doc? wrote:Such a great blog, I made a comment about Uriah Heep on Christobell's thread. I'm feeling a bit dim here but is Candyfloss Christobell, or have I got that wrong?

Well they do both begin with C....lol

So I got that wrong, sorry - it's just it didn't say Christobell...I'm digging a hole now.

Sorry wud.....it made me hoot with laughter! No offence!

Heisenburg wrote:

Andrew wrote:Lots of new articles coming out by the minute.

I'm off away for a couple of days. Just as well as can't take much more of this anniversary nonsense.

See you all when I get back. If I come back.

Come back in twelve months nowt will have altered.

I think you might be right there

Bampots wrote:Sorry wud.....it made me hoot with laughter! No offence!

Glad to make you laugh Bampots 

Châtelaine wrote:They have no chance whatsoever to appeal at the ECHR!

Agree. Any case brought to ECHR would be against Portugal, not Dr Amaral, as it is their Supreme Court ruling.

This is just so they could say on national TV that the way is open for an appeal. That way, it still looks as if an injustice has been done and they still have a case. It's pure bravado,  as they were never going to admit that GA has won the legal case and they lost, as that leaves the summing up of the judges of the SC (with the damning inferences contained within) as the final word.

They are desperate,  and Fiona Bruce was pathetic throughout.  On this point alone she should have pushed them: " To whom can you appeal?". WHY does no journalist ask the right questions?

Bampots wrote:

Antonia wrote:Isn't it great to see some gender equality....?

Up to now the only woman suspect I recall was the Victoria Beckham lookalike.

And we kept reading about males - smelly burglars - suspicious looking men hanging around in the area - mystery men carrying young children in jammies like Maddies

And now we have a woman - is she the unidentified nanny who told us of the need for rape alarms - is she one of the cleaners who saw the chance of money by selling Maddie - or is 'Victoria beckham' back in the frame?

Equality is a great thing.

Was there not one where taxi driver picked up a couple...think Kiko showed picture of her??

Kiko did speak to Castela if I remember correctly, but he demanded €1000 to speak further.

I expect the questions were part of the deal, all pre-arranged. They looked very comfortable and well prepared and a bit of botox courtesy of the fund perhaps? Every little helps. I thought the question to Kate, asking if she still bought Madeleine birthday and Christmas presents was a smart one, it made KM look creepy and unhinged as Christobell pointed out. It's one of those things that will come back to haunt her when the truth comes out, hopefully.

I'll be more worried if Panorama on Wednesday is similarly shallow. Fingers crossed.

niklasericson wrote:

Bampots wrote:

Antonia wrote:Isn't it great to see some gender equality....?

Up to now the only woman suspect I recall was the Victoria Beckham lookalike.

And we kept reading about males - smelly burglars - suspicious looking men hanging around in the area - mystery men carrying young children in jammies like Maddies

And now we have a woman - is she the unidentified nanny who told us of the need for rape alarms - is she one of the cleaners who saw the chance of money by selling Maddie - or is 'Victoria beckham' back in the frame?

Equality is a great thing.

Was there not one where taxi driver picked up a couple...think Kiko showed picture of her??

Kiko did speak to Castela if I remember correctly, but he demanded €1000 to speak further.

If you go to kiko twitter page im pretty sure he has posted an image of the lady in question!

Dee Coy wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:They have no chance whatsoever to appeal at the ECHR!

Agree. Any case brought to ECHR would be against Portugal, not Dr Amaral, as it is their Supreme Court ruling.

This is just so they could say on national TV that the way is open for an appeal. That way, it still looks as if an injustice has been done and they still have a case. It's pure bravado,  as they were never going to admit that GA has won the legal case and they lost, as that leaves the summing up of the judges of the SC (with the damning inferences contained within) as the final word.

They are desperate,  and Fiona Bruce was pathetic throughout.  On this point alone she should have pushed them: " To whom can you appeal?". WHY does no journalist ask the right questions?

If a case keeps going to Appeal, surely it means the McCanns don`t have to repay Gonçalo`s assets as it`s still not final.

In the Fiona Bruce interview I noticed KM said she`s back at work `not as a GP but in medicine`.

Mimi wrote:In the Fiona Bruce interview I noticed KM said she`s back at work `not as a GP but in medicine`.

Possibly some kind of test subject?

Mimi wrote:In the Fiona Bruce interview I noticed KM said she`s back at work `not as a GP but in medicine`.

I have a funny feeling that means not as a doctor.

Maybe a research assistant for Gerry?

Oh dear, front page above, Maddie was hidden in a womans coffin and cremated, according to ex police chief!!

Maddie 'cremated'
Shamed ex Portuguese top cop Goncalo Amaral claims Madeleine’s body was hidden in coffin then burned
Wild theory comes hours after Kate and Gerry McCann described their hopes Madeleine was still alive

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3450890/shamed-ex-portuguese-top-cop-goncalo-amaral-claims-madeleines-body-was-hidden-in-coffin-then-burned/

Has he ever mentioned this before? I know that others have suggested it as a theory.

I hope that we can get a translated transcript of the programme.

...I should have said that's from an old programme, about a year ago I think.

Thanks for that.

So he's saying it is a theory which has been mentioned by others.

Hardly the impression given by the tabloids, needless to say!

P.S. Just seen that this is an old interview so we need to wait and see if there is another one today as mentioned in the report.

I don't know if he has said anything different today but he is usually very measured, so I would think it's the same. It looks like information that came to light after the investigation closed and he is saying it's a potential line of enquiry...very interesting theory.

A story from nearly 3 years ago about the same thing.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-hid-body-7277975